(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Report"

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



CLOSED MM ^ 
STACKS I I 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

DOCUMENTS OEPT; 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLiC LIBRARY 






f/fr 



^SGJtH 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DOCUMENTS D E P A RT M E NTi |||||||j|||||| l|||||l|||||||||||j||, 

,<w^3 IIIIJHI ipilllHIflllllllllll 



3 1223 90187 9370 

APHift 

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

3 1223 90190 1836 

flpf~ mo 

, SAN F RANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1 



223 90190 1844 



CO 
..LIC LIBRARY 



*7 






OFFICE OF 



Public Defender 

55o/u6nTGOMERY STREET 



City and County of San Francisco 

/ 

*N FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1 



-_ 



~— 



■ I 



C*s«« Saddled «w 



Cmw 

»•* Okam-* — — - — ■ ■m^ 

C*.3S •— 

»• C«rUfi«d froa ^RieA,. 

or. ,1m -Uj 

£«s*a r*col*od as 



Gerald J. Kenny 
Public Defender 



7*0 



DOCUMENTS DSPT. 
SAN ,CO 

PUELic l:£];:ary 
*3S3. c i 









*«- 



fi 



trijtl — 



*C CtM?£*d ■ ■ ■ » * '7 



frt^ *si**d 



arg«4 mm 

of 






19 



o»ltOR with -2*1 i MretMMfN*" 

rroWtiou fcoalofl- . .■■■■■■ ■ - '7 9 






->e &r*u-tt«o— 



H 



6384 












• 1 



)U 



. 101 

ii«nte:v \A 

xpi 

fitted U 

?.l 2 

fercict Wot Sutlty — — I4 

, -<- ._ _ tfj 

Frob&tlon sltkout J&ll .:e 75 

-.v _ 2 

jbation to Ka*y 11 

Transfer to ct ■ L 

Ctses i 

11? 

icUx* 

tfc i 

ponded ''"■•"•-'•: tcr.cc turaod av«r to Navy — — - 

dssetf to $evy 

adtd to Ncvy ' A 

Cases Pending 3/. 

Total Euaber of ... ."2c-r*..nces in .uperior Court 

TOTAL OF CJ 

and Suptrlor Court *.577 

4382 

t# is '■'■■ J&ii 
City Prltoc 444 

bdvica In civil 

(not r :itrt*r) 



REPORT 

I 

MUNICIPAL COURT 
Total number of Felony Cases handed 1632 

NY. CASES 

Cases He la to answer 4.97 

Certified to ' u,x-.rior Court 153 

£i : d 1 <,: 

Private Counsel 169 

Off Calendar 73 

County Jell sentence 66 

Cv. entences 62 

Probe tion or turned over to Prob. Office — 67 

Transferred to Juvenile Court 20 

Fttgi lives lalvai Extrauiction 25 

Court/ Jail & Suspended Lentence 17 

Cor Juvenile Court 3 

H/A to JuTttitil .t - 1 

l to 1 >] pital 8 

Stti pencec ft tution 2 

Probatic istitutiea 6 

Hecucea to L M*nor 11 

Dials aid to Vetera, lei 1 

vjrned over to Navy I 

ft »d to Wavy 

1 *d to Army 3 

j'r'a 2 

Turned over to U. S« Marshall 1 

Di:mi6,:ed to Lutch Consul 1 



MlirLFJiEANOfi CASES 50 

County Jail A ided 5 

;bation 

i.spencec t over to Navy 2 

Li smiled 13 

pended .Sentence 7 

County Jail 4 

j pendea to Army 2 

ined 3 

fciuc pended ft Pay Lavages 11 

JUVENILE COURT 110 

Held to answer 

County Jail 

bation 7 

Probation t -tvy 1 

County Jail tence 

Off Ca-.encar A 

Privtt-2 Couaeal - A 

I1HU .___ 19 

Ac j i. Insana 12 

.ea ea 7 

CO 6 

Total number of ca e Lad 

unicipal Court 2384 







City and County of San Francisco 

office of f Gerald J. Kenny 

Public Defender public defender 



Public Di 

UMDNTSOM 



ERY STREET 



* i - cal \ 

T 

C«>i • u — 

■ — ' 4 
New c 6. 

Caae« d 591 

C 46 

Cese^ Certl . t 

j 

e re etv Loo 

t £70 

itering plea§ o: guilty 

as ehargec 91 

a ity 
lesser of :ense — 41 

Tria s by J rj 

Verdict ilty 7 

-ict Guilty of 

5, 

v uilty 

as charged 43 

Trials Jury waiv.u 1 

- Qttiity — 

1 ty as 
a~- — 
Foui 

I - — s 

I .5,7 

ion without J e 

teoee 35 

nation Denied ?. 

Peti * tad 

Mo Probation . "aeo 

Mo. iievofci 1 

j»o tea 4 

Mo aba tie 

— 

Gri - - ■ J 



Writ habeas . — 1 

.ed 



t«nced to i Motlfl - ■ — 

tonc«d n.H 148 

i 

• " * ■. 1U1 

Verdict Vj — • 7 

I . t X3 

.btt.loi/ once — — — 
" with J«l- o — — 

* *IM? 1 

« V ; 6 

tr*B*fwr -t 

i .1. ed 57 

Lvata CauSMl i 

Off Oa ©uceor 

:*ti 3tat*M*< -- 15 

lou ty — — 

t<?-jC0C to i-eeth — ~— — 2 

>»tion & :. iti«a — — 3_ 

Fined ■■■ ■■ • - Z 5$i 

total Inter ■) '... | ior Gou-.-t — S 

tot- In ell C \ f Municipal 

rlor Coufcts • ! 

TOTil* ; Kl 

Can: :>unt> J&il ftOi 
ison • 

r««eirj ■■ .rs 

-*5(i by Charter) - 



- 

t 

< 

Cn .i#r *mmm 

t#PU — ~™ 

C*fc«» «ri ai | .«d ■■- ■ I*- — „ — ..,-,»^ w 

v I ■■. „ .■■-», 1 

»U I -a «B d »fl . AcitaflM ••— 

'•/ 4fe.tl .- #?***»«•* -- — 

. • | • • 

• *<<«•£ — . --. — . — . — 

■r •»*• — — . — «m« ; 

nPMtiUv *rt — — — — -— f 

v. . ? * £4 — 6 

■ Ml HM« MW — ~~. J 

W«i»««- ■ w urn J§ 

tu» :-*t. r - ittu *■*'— 

ver t>o Itff) «-.—..- — - — 4 

Ml » " ■ " » " ■ ■'"«••■- < n ■ ■ ■ 
ffcftiVf 

vy ~m> -- V, I I L I , 

MX ■ ~ 

•;1 MM 

ill 

■ 

n««d - — - • 

i - ---« 



\A* mv — «_ ^ .......... $3 

li mm 

All & »>■■" 

: *„«»'•£# ■...■■■■■ i mmm 

Tr*.'-. -J**r ' , — *• X 

la*. u I 

tW I airy —.—«—— 




«? ww i ih i iii i 

-— '7 

- 
?#r- -•■•- 



T*%m\ .h4 — — - — 

t -- — ~ — — — - ?196 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

GERALD J. KENNY 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER 

Public Defender rw 

IERY STREET 

•d 851 

Oid I'r.sfic 1 



.o.ec. 771 

Ci Lng 6 J 

Cftft 

I, 2 

. i , 67 

Ltgi 



I . — 

Xr I i 

; 

.. — 

■ _ 

Tr! 

6y 

Fours -,y as 

cn& 

c — • 

Li A 

Probe tioii »ltl 

■ - 

» 

taa — 11 

■ fea 

• ■ * id i 

* I j ■■ . i 

■ • • &« — 





riied — • J 

*b#aa C — 

- 
< »« »<- — ■■-- I 
_ 3 

'auntttd — 3 



tencttd to Q — — i 1 

" .... 

COOftlttMli lO Stttf 

" C*Utpi-- - • — 1 

. 

t— 

* *naa»- 

• . -in 

" htivy '• 

Trw mail* Court — — — 4 
•» tl 



■ , 



.... 

ki 

L. ..» 1 771 

— 

irt , '*1 



>* '■ ■ ■■■ l\ 

ntj- Jl 

, 

(no — — 



- 

T 

Cft?: : . wisner 

| _ . 

wd ■ 4 

UfSSd ( 

1 .. 

J&li ■-<* — - — L 

Prob«tio: 12 

• — 19 

Tri refill* i — 

. ' . 

rofertiei - & 

mm 

fctl — 

7 

Fugitives telli m 

ill 





Jail — 1 






. . _,._. 7 

P->b«tio 9 

Probe*: 

M- 11 

I 



77 



— 69 

L - 

Private- Cetmmk 

t, 

. 7 





oce 

- 3 

fou — 1 

1 

let -jsI 

■.: §& j-__ 

..„_.. — e 

- — -•- 2 

1 

Cocndtte- ttftl * 

1 — 1 



..... — 4 

... i 

. .- 

-rt 



OCT 2 5 1947 **S2»tKSiSS? 



PbS 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



J 



office of t ^. f Gerald J. Kenny 

ublic Defender public defender 

Ao>JTGOMERY STREET 



REPORT FOR 
Fiscal Year 1946-1947 
SUPERIOR COURT 

Cases Handled 1001 

Old Cases 60 

New Cases 941 

Cases Closed 945 

Cases Pending 56 

Cases Certified from lunicipal Court on Pleas Guilty 235 
Cases Received on Information orGrand Jury Indict, 706 

Defendants entering pleas of guilty as charged 145 

Defendants entering pleas of guilty lesser offense.. 70 

Trials by Jury 92 

Verdicts of Not Guilty.. 25 
Verdicts Guilty Lesser 

Offense 12 

Verdicts Guilty as 

Charged 53 

Disagreed -cases 

Dismissed 2 

Trials Jury Waived 94 

Found Not Guilty 16 

Found Guilty as charged 54 
Found Guilty lesser 

Offense 17 

Dismissed 7 

Insanity Trials 2 

Declared Sane 2 

Probation without Jail Sentence .... 49 

" with Jail sentence 33 

Probation Denied 135 

Probation & Restitution 7 

Motion Probation withdrawn 16 

" Revoke Probation denied 2 

" " " granted.... 7 

" to modify Probation granted. 5 

n to dismiss denied 5 

Motion for New Trial 10 

Withdrawn 3 

Denied 7 

Petition Rehabilitation and Pardon .... 12 
Granted 12 



Sentenced to San Quentin 175 

Sentenced to County Jail 259 

Sentenced to Tehachapi 9 

Committed to State Hospital 10 

Fined \ 2 

Verdict Not Guilty 25 

Found Not Guilty by Court 16 

Probation without Jail Sentence 49 

Probation with Jail Sentence 33 

Probation to Army 4 

Probation to Marines 1 

Probation to Navy 6 

Died - Cases Dismissed 2 

Cases Di missed 98 

Private Counsel 94 

Off Calendar 16 

Suspended Sentence 51 

Youth Authority 83 

Probation & Restitution 7 

Di,- missed to Immigration Authorities .... 3 

Sent back to Municipal Court 2 945 

Total Number of Appearances in uperior Court ...324.5 



1 



Total Number of Cases in Courts, Municipa* 

and uperior Courts 5771 

Consultations with defendants in County Jail and 

City Prison 5337 

Indigent persons receiving advice in civil matters 

(not required by Charter) 3517 



REPORT 1946-1947 
MUNICIPAL COURT 



Total Number of Cases handled 1661 

FELONY CASES 

Cases held to answer • .....445 

Certified Superior Court 235 

Fined 3 

Reduced to Misdemeanor 37 

Private CounsI L48 

County Jail & Suspended Sent 13 

County Jail 20 

Probation 10 

Suspended Sentence 15 

Off Calendar 38 

Cases Dismissed 293 

Fugitives Waived Extradiction 48 

Sent to Detention 17 

Transferred to Juvenile 1 

O.R.»d to Army 2 

Fine & Probation 4 

Turned over to Navy 1 1330 

MISDEMEANOR CASES 

Dismissed 20 

Suspended 8 

County Jail 7 

County Jail & Probation 2 

Suspended Sentence & Probation. ... 6 

Probation 15 

Fine & Suspended Sentence 1 

Fined 2 

Fine & Probation 3 64 

JUVENILE COURT 

Held to Answer 127 

County Jail , ... 5 

Private Counsel 19 

County Jail & Susp. Sentence..... 3 

Dismissed 56 

Off Calendar 5 

O.R.'d. to Array 1 

Probation 19 

Sent to Detention • 11 

Referred to Boys 1 Dept • 1 

" " Girls 1 Dept 1 248 

INSANITY HEARINGS 13 

Committed 4 

Dismissed 8 

Private Counsel 1 

JURY TRIALS 3 

Acquitted 1 

Found Mentally 111 1 

Dismissed 1 

WOMEN* S COURT 1 

Dismissed 1 

CORONER'S INQUEST 2 

Total number of appearance in Municipal Court .... 2526 



City and county of San Francisco 
/<74s-uK' / AUG 1 5 id49 

' Gerald J. Kenny 

office of »' '°* _ Public Defender 

Public Defender AN FRANCISCO 

IONTGOMERY STREET HEPOET PUBLIC LI B R AH V" 



3*> 



n«cAl year 1943-1K9 



Cases Handled. 966 

Old Caeea L') 

Hew Caufcb .917 

Cases* Closed. 90? 

Cases Pending 59 

Cases Certified i'roa Municipal Court.. 216 

Cases heceiTed on Information or 

Grand Jury Indictment, •••........ ..••....••....•• 750 

Trials by Jury 79 

Verdicts Guilty as Charged.. .,. 50 

Verdicts Bot Guilty 11 

Verdict* Guilty Larger Offense A 

Id sagreed 12 

Disagreed ana Liamissoa..... .2 

Trials Jury Halved 30 

Found Guilty as Charged....... ............. .62 

Foumi Sot Guilty .13 

Found Guilty Lascar Of f esse...... .....3 

CI aai s a ea I 

Appeals to bupreae Court ,2 

Denied • 2 



Sentenced to E*n Quen tin 214 

Death Sentence. .............. •••••...•••1 

Sentenced to County Jell • .257 

Sen ten cd to Tehachepi ........... ••....... .4 

State Hospital , . .12 

Probation without fall Sentence,. • 46 

Probation with Jail -entence. ...5i 

Probation with itestitution 12 

Probation to the Savy. •••••.••••••••3 

Sentence Modified ••••••••..••••..•••••••• • .2 

Dleai^ed * 132 

Private Counsel • ♦ . . . . .76 

Off Calenaar 25 

Suspended -entence. . ••..••.....•..•.•.•.••..••..•30 

Youth authority » •..•••29 

R*Te red o&cn to tfunlclpHi Court.......... 2 

Kef erred to <loy's Dep<rtaent • •••••••1 

Transferred to Juvenile •••••••.•..•1 

Certified Rehabilitation. S 

feroicte Wot Guilty .11 

Found Sot Gui ity. .!> 

Diasieeed. ..4 907 



Total number ol Appearances in Superior Court ,.. 2312 

Total nuabtr of Appearances in Courts 

Municipal dn'X Superior Courts.. 6421 

Total number of Cases in Courts 

Municipal *nd superior Courts, 2822 

ConeultetiontJ ana Defendants in County Jail 

WA Cit? PvUon........... *536 

Indigent Perrons receiving advice in Cxrix 

•ettere (not requirwi by 6|m rt.-r)..,,. 3423 



REPORT 1948-1949 
MUNICIPAL COURT 



Total Number of Cases Handled ..1913 

FELONY CASES 

Held to answer. ••••••.••••. 513 

Certified to Superior Court 216 

Fined *. 1 

Reduced to Misdemeanor. .49 

Priva be Counsel. •• 4-30 

County Jail. 19 

Probation. .15 

Suspended Sentence. .15 

Fugitive Waived Extradiction. 42 

Cases Dismissed. .410 

Off Calendar 25 

Sentence Modified. .1 

Sent to State Hospital ....5 

Sent to Detention Hospital.... 26 

Transferred to Juvenile Court .....6 

Youth Authority • • .1 

Turned over to Navy. ...4 

Certified Boy* s Department. ,14 

Turned over to Marine Corps.. , ..3 1850 

MISliMEiiiOi: CASilS 

Dismissed .10 

Suspended Sznte\~ce. • 15 

County Jail. , 12 

Cour.ty Jail and Probation 2 

Suspended Sentence and Prob.. tion... 3 

Probation. .....4 

Fine ,.1 ^ 

INSANITY ttSAgXlOS 

CoEftdtisd. ..2 

Released »•« .^ , 7 

JURY TRIALS 

x v ound Mentally 111. .....I 

Found Sum . ,.£ 3 

onm&tfl MQws£T6 - 

TOTAL IBIffiBtt Jx' APP£aBA3CS£ Xfl KUIXCIPAL COflEl 3609 



City and County of San Francisco 

OFFICE OF C . ^- f 

PUBLIC DEFENDER GERALD J. KENNY 

SS^ MONTGOMERY STREET PUBLIC DEFENDER 



PORT 
Biscal Year 1950-1951 

SUPERIOR COURT 



Cases Handled .... • 1125 

Cld Cases 136 

New Cases 989 1125 

Cases Closed •. 1019 

Cases Pending .. ♦ 106 1125 

Cases Certified from Municipal Court 269 

Cases Received on Information or 

Grand Jury Indictment .... ...♦ 856 

Trials by Jury 65 

Verdict Guilty as charged 43 

Verdict Not Guilty 13 

Verdict Guilty Lessor Offense 2 

Disagreed ».« 3 

Disagreed and Dismissed ••• 4 

Trials Jury WaL ved 59 

Pound Guilty as charged • 42 

Found Not Guilty 14 

Pound Guilty Lessor Offense ......... 2 

Dismissal •• 1 






Sentenced to San Quentin • 250 

Sentenced to Count Jaul ••••• 233 

Probation with County Jail Sentence 43 

Sentenced to Tehachapi 5 

Sent to State Hospital •• 7 

Probation without Jail Sentence 42 

Probation with Fine • , 7 

Probation with Restitution • 10 

Probation Revoked Granted . 15 

Probation Revoked Denied • 5 

Probation Modified 5 

New Trials Denied 3 

Reduced to Lisdemeanor 2 

Senten ce Modified 5 

Dismissed 152 

Private Counsel • 113 

Suspended Sentence 18 

Youth Auth ority 59 

Off Calendar 6 

Transferred to Juvenile 1 

Certificate Rehabilitation Cra nted 5 

Verdicts Not Guilty 13 

Pound Not Guilty 14 

Deceased - Dropped from Calendar 1 

Transferred to Municipal Court 5 1019 

Total Appearances in Superior Court •• 

Total Appearances in Courts 

Superior and Municipal 

Total number of cases in Courts 

Superior and Municipal o 

Consultations with Defendants in County Jail 

and City Prison 

Indigent Persons receiving Advice in Civil 

Hatters (not required by Charter) 



3760 
7653 
3002 
5538 
3419 



* ■ a * 






MUNICIPAL COURT 



To td. Number of Cases Han died . . 1877 

FELONS CASES 

Held to Answer 491 

Certified to Superior Court 269 

Reduc d to Misdemeanor 140 

Private Counsel . . 386 

Restitution and Probation 8 

Cases Dismissed * . 434 

Off Calendar . 11 

Pined 4 

Fugitive waived Extradiction • •••• 36 

Sent to State Hospital 21 

Sent to Detention 10 

Transferred to Juvenile Court .... 17 

Certified to Boys Dept. • 3 

Apptd, in Civil Hatters 1 

Pending ., 28 1859 

MISDEMEANOR CASES 

Dismissed ...... ...... .....<>• 1 

Suspended Sentence • 3 

County Jail •• 2 

Suspended Sentence & Probation . •« 1 

Probation 2 9 



INSANITY E 

Commit ted • • . • 1 

Released • 1 



JURY TRIALS 

Pound Hentally 111 3 

Found Sane • • • 1 

Off Calendar 1 

Dismissed ••• • 1 

Jury Disagreed • 1 



Total Number of Appearances in Municipal Court 3893 



City and County of San Francisco 



OFFICE OF 

Public Defender Gerald J. Kenny 

5SO MONTGOMERY STREET PUBLIC DEFENDER 



August 5, 1952 



The Honorable Elmer E. Robinson 

or of the City and County 
of San Francisco 
City Hall 

i Francisco 2, California. 

Dear Mayor Robinson: 

I am enclosing my report for the fiscal 
year 1951-1952 covering operations of my department. 
The work of the office shows by comparison an increase 
of about 10$ o^er the preceding year. o additional 
copies of the report are also enclosed . 

I am having difficulty in interviewin 
prisoners awaiting trial due to the over crowded 
conditions in the County Jail. Most of them are sent 
to the County Jail at San Bruno. I have r.o trans- 
portation for myself or my deputies to interview them 
and I believe that some arrangements should be made 
so that they should get the service to which they are 
entitled, I am sure that the judges will agree with me 
and I know that the Sheriff will also agree that some- 
thing should be done. 

'th. kindest personal regards, I am, 

Very truly yours, 



GERALD J. KENNY, 
Public Defender 

GJK-.NK 

CC Board of Supervisors 



City and County of San Francisco 



OFFICE OF S 

Public Defender r 

SSO ^QfcTGOMERY STREET GERALD J. KENNY 

Public Defender 



BPORT 

Fiscal Year 1951-1952 

Cases Handled 1235 

Old Cases 106 

New Cases 1129 1235 

Cases Closed 1130 

Cases Pending 105 1235 

Cases Certified from Municipal Court 240 

Cases Received on Information or 

Grand Jury Indictment 995 

Trials by Jury 76 

Verdict Guilty as charged 61 

Verdict Not Guilty 6 

Verdict Guilty of Lesser Off-. 1 

Disagreed 4 

Disagreed & Dismissed ^ 

Trials - Jury \ aived 66 

Found Guilty as charged 5$ 

Found Not Guilty 1 

Found Guilty of Lesser Offense 3 

Dismissed 3 

Found Insane 1 



Sent to San Vuentin 261 

Sent to County Jail 313 

Probation with County Jail Sentence 37 

Sent to Tehachapi 13 

Sent to State Hospital 10 

Probation without Jail Sentence 43 

Probation with Fine 10 

Probation with Restitution £ 

Probation Revoked 9 

Revoke Probation denied 2 

Probation Modified 5 

New Trials Denied 11 

New Trials Granted 1 

Sentence Modified 4 

Reduced to Misdemeanor 20 

Cases Dismissed «.— .- 119 

Private Counsel 154 

Suspended Sentence 23 

Sent to Youth Authority 36 

Off Calendar 17 

Certificate of rehabilitation granted 2 

Transferred to Municipal Court 5 

Turned over to Federal Authority 1 

. o. to set aside denied 2 

Ex parte lotion to Expunge Record Granted 1 

Verdict Not Guilty 6 

Verdict Guilty of Lesser Offense 1 

Jury Disagreed 4 

Jury Disagreed & Cases Dismissed 4 

Found Not Guilty Trial Without Jury 1 

Found Guilty of Lesser Offense without Jury 3 

Dismissed without jury 3 

Found Insane 1 

Cases Pending 10£ 1235 

TOTAL APPEARANCES IN SUPERIOR COURT 4139 

TOTAL APPE. CS IN COURTS SUPERIOR & J IB L £g27 

TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN COURTS SUPERIOR I UNI- 

CIPAL 3 262 

Consultations with Defendants in County Jail and 

City Prison 5^97 

Indigent Persons receiving advice in Civil Matters 
(lob re i: id by Charter) 3760 



Y 



7 







£ ; 





7NICIPAL COURT 

Total Number of Cases Handled 2027 

FELONY CASES 

Held to Answer 627 

Reduced to Misdemeanor 24 

Certified to Superior Court 240 

Private Counsel 493 

Restitution & Probation 13 

Cases Dismissed 411 

Off Calendar 7 

Fugitive Waived Sxtradiction — 56 

Sent to State Hospital 17 

Transferred to Juvenile Court — 23 
Certified to Boy T s Dept. 

Juvenile Court 2 

Reduced to Misdemeanor 

Sent to County Jail 31 

Suspended Sentence 16 

Given Probation 42 

Probation & Fine 1 

Pending Cases 14 207 

Writ of Habaes Corpus 2 

Denied Appellate Court 1 

" Supreme Court 1 

it of Prohibition 1 

Denied Appellate Court 1 



£r a 



ntally 111 Trials 

Jury Trials 12 

Found Mentally 111 7 

Found Sane 5 

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEARANCES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 46S£ 



r 

« 

_[' ■ 



r 

I 

■ r • 



CI j 



'(p5 



office of 
Public Defender 

50 .montgomery street 



w 



City and County of San Francisco 



Gerald J. Kenny 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 



REPORT 
Fiscal Year 1953-1953 
SUPERIOR COURT 



Cases Handled 1207 

Old Cases 105 

New Cases 1105 1207 

Cases Closed 1114 

Cases Pending 93 1207 

Cases Certified from Municipal Court 

on Plea of Guilty 232 

Cases Received on Imformation or 

Grand Jury Indictment — - 975 

Trials by Jury 65 

Verdict Guilty as charged — 44 

Verdict Not Guilty 6 

Disagreed set for New Trial- 6 
Disagreed Cases Dismissed — 6 
Found Sane — 3 

Trials - Jury Waived 66* 

Found Guilty as charged 56 

Found Not Guilty 12 

Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 

Denied 1 

Appeal to Supreme Court 1 

Pending 1 

Mentally 111 Trials Jury 16 

Found Mentally 111 9 

Found Hot Mentally 111 7 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

AUG 17 1953 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



SUPERIOR COURT 

p rivate Counse3 146 

Sent to San Quentin 215 

Sent to County Jail 316 

Sent to Women's •' 16 

Sent to Chino 1 

Sent to State Hospital 44 

Probation and County Jail 25 

Probation without Jail Sentence 47 

Probation with Fine 10 

Probation with Restitution 12 

Probation Revoked 10 

Probation Modified 4 

Fined 1 

New Trial Denied 2 

Sentence Modified 6 

Reduced to Ilisdemeanor 17 

Cases Di3missed 111 

Suspended Sentence 15 

Sent to Youth Authority 54 

Off Calendar 10 

Certificate of Rehabilitation granted 4 

Transferred to Municipal Court 9 

Sent to Veteran's Hospital 1 

Probation Terminated 2 

Transferred to Juvenile Court 1 

R f d to Army 1 

Motion to Expunge Records granted 1 

Verdicts of Not Guilty 6 

Jury Disagreed and Cases Dismissed 6 

Jury Disagreed and Set for Trial 6 

Found Not Guilty 12 

Found Sane 3 

Cases Pending 93 1207 

Total Appearances in Superior Court 4197 



MUNICIPAL COURT 



FELONY CASES 

Held to answer ■ 635 

Certified to Superior Court 232 

plea of guilty 

Taken over by Private Counsel 4#1 

Reduced to Misdemeanor 70 

Cases Dismissed 291 

Cases off Calendar 10 

Fugitive Waived Extradiction 47 

Sent to State Hospital 25 

Transferred to Juvenile Court 

Certified to 5oy T s Department Juvenile 8 

Reduced to Misdemeanor Probation 

County Jail 2 

n to Misdemeanor Sentenced to 

County Jail 34 

,? ■ Suspended Sentence 7 

" " Given Probation 24 

Tt " Probation & Fine 11 

■ " " & Restitution — Id 
Cases Pending 22 1924 

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEARANCE IN MUNICIFAL COURT 4305 

TOTAL APPEARANCE IN SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL COURTS #502 

TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL 

COURTS — 3131 

Consultations with Defendants in County Jail 

and City Prison 5940 

Indigent Persons receiving advice in Civil 

Matters (not required by Charter) 3635 



ANNUAL REPORT 

of 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 
of the 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAM FRANCISCO 
July 1, 1955 to June 30, 1956 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PU3L1C DEFENDER 



**■*■**#■*•* *■* 



Following excerpt is from "THE LAW AND THE FUTURE" by the Honorable 
Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: 

"The proud inscription on our federal courts - Equal Justice Under 
Law - remains our goal but is not fully secured to all citizens. 
The rights promised them by our Constitution are not yet perfected. 
Some of the defects in our system are inherited; others keep creep- 
ing in. Justice, like freedom, needs constant vigilance. 



"Unequal justice is a contradiction in terms. Yet access to just- 
ice is unequal in parts of our country. Suspects are sometimes 
arrested, tried, and convicted without being adequately informed 
cf their right to counsel. Even when he knows of this right, many 
a citizen cannot afford to exercise it. There are barely half en- 
ough public defenders, legal-aid societies, or other methods av- 
ailable to perfect this right." 



DOCUMENTS DEPf. 

SEP 27 1956 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBUC i IMAM* 



" J 



i ^ 






OFFICE 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 
1921 paving the way for the establishment of the Public Defender 
system in counties in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's Office in San Francisco was 
established on October 15, 1921, it was not until February 1955, 
that the office of Public Defender was able to represent defend- 
ant? in -misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony cases. In 1955 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco approved 
legislation enlarging tho scope of the office, providing the ser- 
vices of an Investigator, and funds for the purchase of a law 
library. 

These improvements now permit the Public Defender's office 

to operate as it was originally intended to operate under the 

charter of the City and County of San Francisco. Section 33 

thereof, which was adopted by the People of San Francisco in 

1932, reads as follows: 

"Section 33. . . He shall immediately upon the re- 
quest of a defendant who is financially unable to 
employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend 
or give counsel or advice to any person charged with 
the commission of a crime." 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 
It is neither our duty nor our responsibi] ity to try all 
cases, "e are constantly on the alert to prevent the imposition 
of excessive sentences wherever possible. Where the facts justify, 
we urge a p] ea of guilty. If the facts show the defendant to be 
guilty, but do not justify a plea to a felony charge, we endeavor 

-1- 



to obtain a plea to a lesser included offense. Unwarranted pleas 
of not guilty are not recommended. Neither do we recommend plea? 
of guilty in felony cases in preliminary hearings, except in cases 
where the defendant is arrested under Section 476A of the Penal 
Coda (issuing checks without sufficient funds). v e thus have 
the opportunity of investigating the facts, and examining the 
testimony of complaining witnesses and studying the transcript 
after the defendant has been held to answer in the Superior Court. 

We endeavor at all times to expedite trials and oppose un- 
necessary delays. This indirectly saves the county money and 
prevents clogging of calendars. To permit a case to drag through 
the criminal courts also works a great hardship upon the accused, 
particularly when defendants are unable to post bail and conse- 
quently are compelled to remain in custody pending the ultimate 
disposition of their cases. Since ninety-nine per cent of the 
Public Defender's clients are unable to raise bail, it is our 
purpose, to the full extent of our ability, to shorten the time 
between the arrest of the accused and his conviction or acquittal. 

The Public Defender strives to give the indigent the best 
quality of legal service. Each case is given the same care and 
attention as that provided by the best legal talent in this area. 
Equality before the law is democracy in action. The Public De- 
fender provides equal justice for everyone requiring his services, 
irrespective of race, creed or ability to pay. Our duty is not 
to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty - it is to see 
that each defendant is granted a fair and impartial trial; that all 
of his rights are preserved; to present every possible defense; to 

-2- 



v.. ■ ■■- ; 






ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist, and generally 
to see that all defendants receive every protection of the law 
to which they are justly entitled. 

It is also part of our duties to handle applications for 
certificates of rehabilitation of persons released from the state 
prison, as set forth in the Duell Act passed by the Legislature 
of the State of California. 

It is our duty to secure absolute justice for all defendants 
so long as the presumption of innocence attaches to them, 

■* -X- -X -X -X -X * # * * 

Our deputies exercise extreme care and caution in order to 
be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's Office are represented. Affidavits regarding 
financial inability to employ private counstl are now required 
of all defendants in felony cases. 

Legal assistance to the destitute in criminal cases affects 
the life of every individual in the community. Of equally vital 
importance is the adequate protection of the innocent and just 
treatment of the guilty. 

The Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, among other 
things, requires that in all criminal prosecutions the accused, 
no matter what is his financial standing, shall have the assist- 
ance of counsel for his defense: 

"AMENDMENT SIX 

"I n al l criminalprosecutions, the accused shall en jo y 
the" ri"gh"t"to a speedy and "public trialT by an impartial 

-3- 



— • r ^ 1 ., -)!• ' ■ >• j.iw 



jury of the state and district wherein the crime 
shall have been committed, which district shall 
have been previously ascertained by ...nw ; and to 
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusa- 
tion; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
him; to have compulsorv process for obtaining wit- 
nesses in his favor, cnd_;;o__ha/e. -;fie as^is^auce of 
counsel for his defense. u 



Appeals to the higher court are made when the facts and cir 
cumstances warrant such action, for we strive to prevent exces- 
sive sentences and injustice. 



PERSONNEL 

The Office of the Public Defender now consists of the follow- 
ing personnel: 

The Public Oefender 

The Chief Deputy Oefender 

3 Senior Attorneys handling felony cases in 
the Superior Court 

3 Junior Attorneys handling misdemeanor cases 
and preliminary hearings of felony cases 
in the Municipal Court 

1 Investigator 

1 L^gal Stenographer 

1 General Clerk-Stenographer 

The attorneys devote full time to their duties, and are not 

permitted to carry on private court practice during office hours. 

Offices are located at 700 Montgomery Street, Third Floor, 

San Francisco 11, California, telephone EXbrook 2-1535. 



*-*■■** * 



* * * * 



-4- 



MISDEMEA NOR CASES H ANDLED I N rflJNICIPAL COURT 

In February of 1955, San Francisco's Public Defender's of- 
fice, began to represent indigents in misdemeanor cases. This 
report is the first to be issued for a full fiscal year in the 
operation of the office in handling misdemeanor cases as well as 
felony cases. 

Experience has proved and experts contend that there is a 
greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 
level than at the felony level. This is due to the fact that be- 
fore a trial and conviction in a felony case there must have been 
a preliminary screening before a Grand Jury or a Committing Mag- 
istrate. It was generally admitted by the San Francisco Bar As- 
sociation, the judges and others experienced in penal work that 
a person charged with a misdemeanor, who was unable to employ 
counsel, had the same right to a fair trial and an adequate pre- 
sentation of his defense, as a person charged with a more serious 
offence. Any other procedure would prevent effective administra- 
tion of justice as well as fail to provide equal justice for all. 

During this fiscal year, for the first time, the Office of 
the Public Defender was in a position to provide counsel and com- 
petent representation to all indigent defendants charged with 
crime, 

We do not represent defendants in all misdemeanor cases, such 
as vagrants and common drunks. Our office does, however, handle 
seme persons charged with drunkenness or vagrancy who have been 
ill or mentally incompetent and in need of immediate referral to 
another agency. We have been able to dispose of such cases 

-5- 



' 



effectively by training our deputies in the ability to ascertain 
quickly such situations and to be able to recommend to the f.o;r •. 
referral to the proper agency. 

Through a process of trial and error, and with the coopera- 
tion of our Municipal Court judges, we hope to discover just what 
type of misdemeanor cases should be handled by the Public Defende:- 
we know we should not represent defendants in all misdemeanor 
cases. 

Today many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and 
carry severe penalties. Our experience to date, in handling mis- 
demeanor cases, has convinced us that our constant presence in 
the Municipal Court greatly decreases the possibility of any 
miscarriage of justice in the court, and aids in the speedy and 
equitable disposition of many cases. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED , IN MISDEM EA NOR CASES 
JULY i,"l955"'to JUNE 30 , 19 56 

Number of defendants represented 1057 

Charges filed against said defendants 1624 

Number of appearances made 1859 

DISPOSITIO N OF M I b DEMEANOR CASES 

Defendants plead guilty 149 

Defendants found guilty 440 

-6- 



Defendants dismissed 251 

Defendants found not guilty 1.16 

Taken over by private counsel 49 

Motions to revoke probation 

Granted 13 Dismissed 1 
Denied 4 Modified 1 

Special appearances made 14 

Motions to reduce or modify sentences (all granted) . 4 

Certified to Juvenile Court (minors) ........ 4 

Warrants issued 3 

Withdrew as attorney . . 3 

Cases still pending 3 

Appeals filed . 2 

Total 1057 

Note; Many of the cases listed above shoving that defend- 
ants were dismissed are cases where after a court hearing 
the judge found the defendants not guilty and, therefore, 
dismissed the charges filed against said defendants. 

Charges dismissed . 220 

Note: The records showing charges dismissed are only those 
instances where the defendant either plead guilty or was 
found guilty to one charge of several. All other charges 
against said defendants were then dismissed either by the 
court or on motion of the District Attorney. In all cases 
where the defendants were found not guilty, or dismissed, 
r'*cf-:.rdless of how many charges were filed against said de- 
fendants, they were not included herein. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER 
PLEAD GUILTTCR HIKE FOUND "GUILTY 



C*mrr.itted to county jail 270 

Probation with jail time 13 

-7- 



TT,r ^^ i i ipi, . .. ^m^, , .., ^.-"-"-^- -'T~ • 



:-.— — t-» -TV 1 - ' ' 









— .. 






Probation with jail, restitution, and/or fine. ... 4 

Fine 61 

Suspended sentences 75 

Suspended sentence and fine 6 

Probation granted 24 

Probation with suspended sentence 72 

Probation with restitution or fine 34 

Probation with suspended sentence and restitution 

or fine 23 

Hospitalized 6 

Time served 1 

Total 589 



DEMANDS FOR JURY TRIALS IN MI SI DEMEANOR CASES 

Demands for jury trials 38 

Waived demand for jury trial 30 

Actual jury trials 8 

Found not guilty 5 
Found guilty 3 



DISPOSITION OF OTHER THIRTY CASES_AFTi!R REFERRAL 

TO TRIAL" JUDGE 



Ple*d guilty. . . 6 

Fcur.d guilty. 6 

Dismissed 10 

Found rot guilty. 7 

P - : ;h warrants issued 1 

-8- 



It is interesting to ncte the marked reduction of jury tr5&3.3 
in criminal cases in the Municipal Court since the Public Defend- 
er's staff was increased in February of 1955, and representation 
given to indigents in misdemeanor cases. 

In 1954 there were 150 jury trials in the Municipal Court. 

In 1955 there were 112 jury trials in the Municipal Court* 

The Public Defender first appeared in representing defendants 
in misdemeanor cases and in jury trials in February of 1955. 

From February to June 30, 1955, although 27 demands were made 
for jury trials, after consultation and advice furnished to said 
defendants by the Public Defender's Office, there were actually 
only 5 of said demands that went to jury trials. The other 22 
cases were referred back to the court for determination and dis- 
posal by the judge. 

For the first six months of 1956, there were only 33 jury 
trials in criminal cases in the Municipal Court. 

During the fiscal year 1955-1956, the Public Defender's Of- 
fice represented 38 defendants in which demands for jury trials 
were made, and of these 38, only 8 actually went to trial before 
a jury. 

When one considers the fact that it costs approximately 
$150.00 5 day for jury fees in municipal court criminal cases 
(each and every juror who appears in these cases is paid $5.00 
r day. whether he serves as a juror, or not), together with other 
cc: '..-. of approximately $190.00 a day for bailiffs, court clerks, 
tr.3 jucge's time, the District Attorney's time and the Public De- 
?< viir'a time in trying actual jury cases, this means consider- 
able Easing has resulted since the Public Defender has been 

-9- 



■ . 



: I . .■ .■*-•• 



/ ;'* '( '■ . 



£.'•■ !...- 



: < " .' i ' 



representing defendants in misdemeanor cases. By giving ir<i •-: .-'' ..- 
representation to defendants, we have been able to eliminate ^mr 
demands that have heretofore been made for jury trials in this 
court. 

■a--********* 

Most misdemeanor cases usually carry penalties of a fine or 
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or 
both fine and imprisonment. 

The major portion of the misdemeanor charges handled by the 

Public Defender are classified as fallows: 

Charges 

llOOO.Vag - Special bookings 212 

This is a special booking for vagrancy where bail 
is set at $1,000 which defendants are unable to 
raise. It is used when the police wish to check 
on said defendants or suspect their implication 
in a crime. 

Section 488 - Petty theft 195 

Pen al Code" 

Section 11721 - Punishment of addicts 

Hea lth & Safety Code (narcotics) 193 

Section 647 - Vagrants (12 classifications) 172 

Peiial Code 

_ "-*■" — •— — — % 

Many of these are women who appear before the '/om- 
en's Court, and addicts who are booked as vagrants 
as well as under Section 11721 of the Health & 
Safety Code. 

Sect ion 1 52 - Drunkenness in public places. 79 

Fo...ico Code 

S»;:r v ion .242 - Battery 74 

Pe _; ; jCode 

Sc-.-'ioii 2*0a - Lewd or indecent acts, or any 

i-'- e Co de act of prostitution 54 

-10- 



Section, 148 

Penal Code""" 



Resisting public officers in 

the discharge of the.il: duties* 42 



Section 240b 

Police" Code 



sejrtion_ii555 

Health & Safety Code 

Section 270 
Penal Code 

gecti un 1 1556 

He a lj ,)\ & Safety Code 

Sec;:ioc_.:291 
jPciice C ode 

Sec tio n 594 

Pena l C ode 

Section 415 
Pen al ""Code 

Section 12025 
Penal, Code 

Secti on 215 

Police Code 

Section 220 
Police Code 



Offering to secure another 
for the purpose Df coftidtting 
any aoi of prostitution. .... 30 

Possession of opium pipe, etc. 29 



Failure to provide for minor 
child , 24 

Visitation or presence in re- 
sorts prohibited (narcotics) . 24 

Prohibiting loitering while 
carrying concealed weapon. . . 24 

Malicious mischief, in general 16 



Disturbing peace. ...... 16 

Carrying certain firearms 

without license 14 

Lewd and indecent acts .... 12 

Visiting - becoming inmate 

of house of ill fame 10 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 



Sec ti on 67 
Traffic Code 



Section. 502 

Vehicle Code 



Charges 



Drunkenness in or about an 
automobile in public street - 
said automobile being under 
his immediate control or 
right to access 



56 



Driving under influence of 
liquor 55 



Note: In booking defendants under this section, 
the arresting officer usually also books the de- 
fendant under Section 67 of the Traffic Code. 



-11- 



Section 274b - Possession of driver's license. . 28 
y^i. c I~. Code 

Section 504 - Injuring or tampering with 

Vehic le Code vehicle. , . . '. 25 

Section 481 - Accidents involving property 

Vehicle Code damage 13 



The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Munici- 
pal Court also handle prelimin3ry hearings in said court in the 
felony cases hereinafter listed. This includes arraignment be- 
fore the Committing Magistrate, the entering of pleas and hear- 
ings to determine whether or not said defendants should be held 
to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court. In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each 
felony. Deputies also conduct interviews with the defendants im- 
mediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court in 
the county jail to prepare for their defense at the time of 
trial. 

ft********* 

PRELI MINARY HEARINGS ON .FELONY CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

FISCAL YEAR 195 5 - 1956 

Defendants represented 1275 

Charges filed against defendants 1472 

Number of appearances made by deputies 2997 

-12- 



-■» H'S . 



'"^^-i^' ''-" ; 



■— ■*::..&;' 



- ■ 












DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

Defendants held to answer 578 

Defendants dismissed or discharged 223 

Taken over by private counsel 183 

Indicted by grand jury 40 

Certified to Superior Court 39 

Special appearances made 21 

Fugitives appeared for 59 

Charges reduced to misdemeanors 113 

Referred to Juvenile Court (minors) 11 

Held mentally ill and hospitalized , 8 



Not e - Fugitives: Most all fugitives waived extra- 
dition or were ordered extradited. Five requests 
were dismissed and one defendant was released after 
hearing. 



REDUCED CHARGES - 113 DEFE NDA NTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defend' 
ant enters a plea of guilty to a lesser included offence (mis- 
demeanor) and the felony charge is dismissed. The 113 defend- 
ants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposad of as fol- 
lows: 

Sentenced to the county jail. 46 

Given probation with suspended sentence 38 

Gi*'en probation with restitution or fine 8 

Given probation with restitution and jail time. ... 4 

-13- 



Given probation with jail time 1 

Given probation 3 

Given suspended sentence with restitution or fine. . . 9 

Fined 3 

Total 113 



FELONY CASES 



By reason of the fact that deputies are now available at all 
times in the Municipal Court, a larger percentage of the felony 
complaints are disposed of in said courts by dismissal or by pleas 
to misdemeanor charges after the facts are heard. This has re- 
duced the number of defendants who otherwise would be held to ans- 
wer and stand trial in the Superior Court. Each time a case is 
disposed of in the Municipal Court, the calendar of the Superior 
Court is expedited, and a substantial saving is made of funds to 
the City and County. 

The Municipal Court deputies, trained in criminal law, can 
thoroughly cross-examine a prosecuting witness to discover the 
actual facts. This aids the Committing Magistrate in determining 
whether or not a crime was in fact committed, and if so, whether 
it was a felony or a misdemeanor. We receive transcripts of the 
testimony, in the event the defendant is held to answer to the 
Superior Court, which is a material assistance in procuring an 
early disposition of the case in the Superior Court. This is evi- 
denced by thu number of pleas in the Superior Court, less jury 
trials and more reduced charges. 

-14- 



J^LONY_CASiiS HANDLED BY_SUPERIOR COURT 
FOIi THE FISCAL YE\R 1955-1956 



Old cases 81 

New cases ,803 

Total 884 



NEW CASES 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in 

Municipal Court 578 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty . . 39 

Indicted by Grand Jury 40 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior 
Court, after private counsel has withdrawn, or on 
special motions of various types _M6 

Total 8C3 



Total number of court appearances made by deputies 

on above cases 3514 



DISPOSITION OF SUP ERIOR COURT CASES 

Defendants plead guilty 316 

Defendants found guilty. . , . Ill 

By jury 69 

By court 42 

Defendants ple.-d guilty to lesser included offences. . .37 
Defendants found guilty of lesser included offences. . . 4 
Defendants dismissed 40 

-15- 



\ 



Defendants found not guilty, , . , , , 3 g 22 

By jury 15 

By court 7 

Reduced to misdemeanors 16 

Mentally ill cases 10 

Found mentally ill 7 
Found not ill 2 

Consented to commitment 1 

Substituted by private counsel 64 

Held sex psychopaths 13 

Held insane 4 

Committed to Corona (Women) 5 

Special appearances . 35 

Motions to revoke probation 48 

Granted 34 

Denied 13 

Withdrawn 1 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 26 

Motion to expunge record 2 

Writ of error coram nobis 2 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psychopaths) . 7 

Rehabilitation cases 3 

Withdrawn as counsel , 2 

Defendants in propria persona - Public Defender in 

advisory capacity • 4 

Bench warrant issued. 1 

Total 772 



-16- 




1 * t 



ti 



i .: A. 



'■>■'.:: i 



• < / 



Cases closed during year (old and new) < . 772 

Cases still pending (end of fiscal year) 112 

Total 884 



FINAL DIS POSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 
IN WHICH DEFENDANT S HAVE PLEAD GUILTY OR 
WERE FOUNDISjILTY 



Death penalty (under appeal). ... ... 1 

Defendants sentenced to San Quentin 139 

Defendants sentenced to San Quentin - sentence sus- 
pended on condition county jail time is served . 6 

Defendants sentenced to county jail 158 

Defendants sentenced to county jail - sentences 

suspended 32 

Defendants sentenced to Corona 5 

Defendants sentenced to county jail - sentence sus- 
pended on condition restitution be made 3 

Defendants sentenced to county jail - sentence sus- 
pended on condition short time be served . . . . 1 

Probation granted 30 

Probation granted - jail time imposed 52 

Probation granted - jail time imposed and restitution 

ordered 6 

Probation granted - jail time imposed together with 

fine 2 

Probation granted - restitution ordered . .12 

Probation granted - fine imposed 8 

Probation granted - suspended sentence and fine imposed 1 

Committed to Youth Authority 40 

Referred to Juvenile Court 3 

-17- 



Committed to State Hospitals. . . T 25 

Fine imposed. , 1 

Total 525 



NUMBER OF MAJQR_CH^RGES_IN FELONY CASES HANDLED 
IN SUPERIOR CQURTHfQR F ISCAL YEAR 1955-1956 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State 
Penitentiary. This may include the penalty of death. When the 
crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county 
jail, within the discretion of the court, it shall be deemed to be 
a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public De- 
fender in the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San 
Francisco fall into the following categories (we have listed only 
those code sections wherein 20 or more charges have been filed 

against defendants): 

Charg es 

Section 459 - Burglary 216 

Penal Code 

Section 211 - Robbery 215 

Penal Code"" 

Section 487 - Grand theft 138 

Pena l Code 

Section ...11500 - Possession of narcotics . . 120 
Health 8, Safety Code 

Section__503 - Theft of vehicle 98 

Vehicle Code 

Note: In booking defendant under this section, the 
arresting officer usually also charges the defendant 
under Section 487 of the Penal Code (grand theft). 

-18- 



r ;s ■ > 






Section 470 - Forgery 68 

Penal Code 

Section 245 - Assault with a deadly weapon .... 45 

Penal Code 

Section 288 - Crime against children; lewd or 

Penal Code lascivious acts 40 

Section .476a - Issuance of checks with insufficient 

Penal Code ' funds 37 

Section 261 - Rape 37 

Penal Code 

Section 182 - Criminal conspiracy 21 

Penal Code 

Section 217 - Assault with intent to commit murder 20 
Penal Code 



COURT AND JURY TRIALS 

The deputies handling felony cases in the Superior Court made 
3514 appearances on behalf of said defendants during the fiscal 
year 1955-1956. 

Many days were devoted to jury and court trials, as follows: 

Days devoted to jury trials 180 days 

Days devoted to court trials . 62 days 

In most of the actual trials, defendants were charged under 

the following code sections: 

Charges 
Section 459, Penal Code 32 

Section 11500, Health & Safety Code 24 

Section 288, Penal Code 15 

-19- 



Section 211, Penal Code * ... 14 

Section 261, Penal Code 13 

Section 487, Penal Code 10 

Section 245, Penal Code 9 

Section 503, Vehicle Code 7 

Section 702, Welfare & Institutions Code 8 

Section 187, Penal Code 4 

Section 220, Penal Code 4 

Section 470, Penal Code 4 



MURDER CASES 

During the year, the Public Defender represented 10 defend- 
ants charged with murder. Ultimately, 2 of these were taken 
over by private counsel. The other 8 were disposed of as follows 

3 plead guilty to manslaughter 

2 plead guilty to second degree murder 

1 was held guilty of second degree murder 

2 were held guilty of first degree murder, one 

with a death penalty, said defendant having 
two counts against him, which case is now 
on automatic appeal. 

MANSLAUGHTER CASES 

During the year, we represented 3 defendants on manslaughter 

-20- 



charges, all of whom were minors who were certified to the Juv- 
enile Court. 

SPECIAL CASE S HANDLED BYJTHHJPUBLIC DEFENDERJEN THE 

JUV ENI LE" COURT'"-.. a"DI VI 3ION JJF JH£~SU^ 

Section 70 2 

Welfare.. & "institutions i Code 

The Public Defender represented the accused in 113 cases 
brought under Section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code 
of the State of California (contributing to the delinquency of 
minors). Although the cases covered under this section are mis- 
demeanors, they are all tried in the Juvenile Court, a division 
of the Superior Court of San Francisco. 

The result of our work is as follows: 

Defendants dismissed 79 

Defendants plead guilty ... 10 

Defendants plead guilty to lesser offence . 1 

Defendants found guilty 2 

Defendants found not guilty 1 

Warrant issued. .... 1 

Taken over by private counsel 11 

Pending 8 

Total 113 






Those defendants who plead guilty or were found guilty, were 
disposed of as follows: 

-21- 






< > ■; t ; . ■ r - 



- ., .1. 



■.i "C •"»'■:,! 



I T ' • 



t 1 



» < 



County jail 7 

County jail and fine 1 

Probation 2 

Suspended sentence with fine 1 

Certified to Juvenile Court 2 



Section 261 

Penal Code 

Our office defended 27 persons accused of violation of Sec- 
tion 261 of the Penal Code (rape). This is a felony and the pun- 
ishment is confinement in the estate Prison for not more than fifty 
years. Most of the cases handled by this office are those in 
which the female prosecutrix is under the age of 18 years, in 
which case the punishment is either in the county jail for not 
more than one year, or confinement in the State Prison for not 
more than fifty years. If the trial is by jury, the jury may rec- 
ommend imprisonment either in the county jail or the state peni- 
tentiary. 

The result of our work is as follows: 

Defendants plead guilty 10 

Defendants found guilty 7 

Defendants found guilty of lesser offence 1 

Defendants found not guilty 2 

Defendants dismissed 2 

Taken over by private counsel 3 

Defendants certified to Youth Authority 1 

Pending 1 

Total 27 

-22- 



• ,} v 



' 



•'• J; 



Those defendants who plead guilty or were found guilty, wer . 
disposed of as follows: 

County jail. 6 

County jail and probation 1 

San Quentin 5 

Probation 2 

Probation with suspended sentence 1 

Probation with fine 2 

Certified to Juvenile Court 1 

S ectio ns 283^,. 288a 
Penal Code 

There were 35 cases of violation of Sections 288 and 288a 
of the Penal Code (crimes against children; lewd and lascivious 
acts) in which the services of the Public Defender were required. 
The gist of the crime consists of acts dealing with minors under 
14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or 
gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires of such person 
or of such child. It is a felony punishable by confinement in 
the State Prison for a period of from one year to life. Section 
288.1 of the tenal Code provides that convicted persons, before 
beir.g eligible for probation or parole, shall be examined by a 
rpp-jtable psychiatrist for a report as to their mental condition. 
These proceedings are under Sections 5500 to 5516 of the v? elfare 
and Institutions Code of the State of California. 

The result of our work is as follows: 



Defendants plead guilty, 



-23- 



» » 1 



:. .i ... i\ 



>..*.: 



" ■ ■: f\ ■ : '" 



■fi ■ .-. ■ 1; 'I 



i'J \ 



C ; ,', - .' j / 



. i , i. •;. fc ; 



Defendants plead guilty to lesser offence. , 1 

Defendants found guilty 8 

Defendants found guilty of lesser offence (261PC). ... 3 
Defendants found guilty of lesser offence (702W&I) ... 1 

Defendants found not guilty 4 

Defendants dismissed 2 

Taken over by private counsel 5 

Defendants found mentally ill 2 

Pending _2 

Total 35 

Those defendants who plead guilty or were found guilty, were 
disposed of as follows: 

County jail. 6 

County jail and probation 1 

San Quentin 1 

Held sex psychopath - committed Atascadero 11 

Certified to Youth Authority 1 

Defendants are usually referred to the State Hospital at 
Atascadero under the ''elfare and Institutions Code sections re- 
ferred to hereinabove, for a period of 90 days. During this per- 
iod of time, all proceedings are suspended, pending examination 
and report as to whether or not the accused is a sex psychopath. 
If he is held to be a sex psychopath, he is committed to Atascad- 
ero for treatment; if not, he is sentenced by the Judge of the 
Juvenile Court, or probation is given. 

-24- 



• 



... 7 



Those who have been committed to Atascadero for treat ii.-r •. 
are subsequently returned from the hospital to the Juvenile Ccu.\ 
for further hearing. 

The Public Defender represented seven defendants in such sub- 
sequent hearings during the past year, which were disposed of as 
follows: 

County jail 1 

Probation 1 

Recommitted for an indefinite period 5 

**•*■*•**•**•** 

INVESTIGATOR 

In February 1955, an experienced Investigator was added to 
the staff of the Public Defender's Office of the City and County 
of San Francisco to aid the deputies in the defense of their 
cases. We are one of the four cities in the nation equipped with 
this important service. It is obvious that if the court and the 
jury are to deal intelligently with defendants and render proper 
judgments, all of the facts and circumstances must be known to 
the deputy so that the case may be fairly and clearly presented in 
court. 

The Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investi- 
gators employed in any private law office or by the District At- 
torney's office; namely, to locate, interview and secure signed 
statements from witnesses in addition to making field investiga- 

-25- 



; i .••.■'• 



■ -T'. 



- v ' '■■) 



DX.IJ 






■',Pi<- 



t • i ;i: 



'.' V { ; J / '. I 



tions of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain 
cases, it is impossible, without an investigator, to ascertain 
the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can de- 
termine from the data accumulated - regardless of whether the 
information discovered proves unfavorable to the accused - the 
guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as find mitigating 
circumstances. 

As a result of acquiring the services of an investigator the 
work of the office in those cases investigated has resulted in sub- 
stantial economies which are reflected by the number of dismiss- 
als, reduction of jury and court trial days and pleas received. 
In several cases, discovered evidence has resulted in showing the 
complete innocence of certain defendants although at first the 
evidence appeared strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. 

With careful investigation, it is possible to eliminate many 
miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a minimum long jury trials. 
Investigations arm the deputy in advance with a complete picture 
of the evidence to be presented which he can then analyze to aid 
him in trying the case expeditiously. 

While services of an investigator have resulted in substan- 
tial savings in trial costs, at no time are the rights of the 
accused person sacrificed to his detriment. 

During the fiscal year, the Investigator investigated 149 
selected cases - some cases representing more than one defendant 
and more than one charge. 

Experience has already proven the necessity of appointing an 

additional investigator to investigate more cases handled by our 

office. 

-26- 



;■" f. 



-r .2 <: :C ■'■'■ 



-v . ,:\'-r> A';- i 



J ■ •':•.' 



The outcome of these 149 investigated cases was as fol 
lows: 

Defendants found guilty 36 

Sentenced to San Quentin - 10 

Sentenced to county jail - 16 

Received probation - 6 

Committed to Atascadero - 4 

Defendants plead guilty 38 

Sentenced to San Quentin - 7 

Sentenced to county jail - 18 

Received probation - 12 

Committed to Atascadero - 1 

Defendants found not guilty, . 11 

Cases dismissed 18 

Taken over by private counsel after investigation. . . 14 
Defended self (deputy defender counseling defendant) . 1 

Special investigations 14 

Mental cases 4 

Cases still pending for trial 15 

Interviews 959 

Subpoenas served 175 

#*•*-* ******* 



-27- 



BUDGET FOR THH FISCA L YEAR 
1955-1956 



Salaries $ 83,490.00 

Temporary Salaries. . 85,00 

Contractual Services 1,724,00 

Material & Supplies 807.00 

Fixed Charges - Rent - Dues Zx24j3JX) 

TOTAL BUDGET $ 93,351.00 



BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 
1956-1957 

Salaries $ 96,365.00 

Temporary Salaries 275.00 

Contractual Services 1,535.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 300.00 

Material and Supplies 1,306.00 

Equipment 717.00 

Fixed Charges - Rent - Dues 6,750.00 

TOTAL BUDGET $107,248.00 \ 



-28- 



ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1956 TO JUNE 30, 1957 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



"If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one 
commandment: Thou shalt not ration Justice." 

Judge Learned Hand 

U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals 

(Retired) 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
NOV 2 2 1957 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ANNUAL REP O RT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1956-57 
PUBLIC DEFE NDER, CITY AND COUNTY CF SAN FRANCISCO 

FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, 
as a matter of legal right, have counsel to represent him is still 
in the process of development. There is a growing recognition 
that the principle is basic to a sound administration of justice, 
and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding Indi- 
vidual liberties. There is no equality before the law in a cri- 
minal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prosecuting 
attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his com- 
mand the entire resources of the police for investigation, is 
mrtched r gainst a poor and often friendless defendant, confined 
in jail, unable to understand even the simplest legal implica- 
tions of the charges against him, and powerless to marshall any 
facts to controvert them if he did. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 
1921, paving the way for the establishment of the Public Defender 
system in counties in the State of California. 

Although the Fublic Defender's office in San Francisco 
was established on October 15, 1921, it was not until February, 
1955, that the office of Public Defender was able to represent 
defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates un- 
der Section 33 of the Charter of the City and County of San 



Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932, 

and which reads as follows : 

"Section 33 ... He shall immediately, upon the request 
of a defendant who is financially unable to employ coun- 
sel, or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel 
or advice to any person charged with the commission of a 
crime. " 

Our jurisdiction is in excess of a million people, 
which includes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who visit 
Sen Francisco daily. 

This year there was an increase in the felony ccse load 
over the preceding year, and over 100$ increase in misdemeanor 
cases. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBI LITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsi- 
bility is to see that each defendant is granted a fair and impar- 
tial trial; that all cf his rights are preserved; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made tc as- 
certain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, generally, to 
see that all defendants receive, every protection cf the law to 
which they are justly entitled. 

Where the facts justify, we urge a plea of guilty to 
the felony charge, or to a lesser included offense. 

We nev^r recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at 
the preliminary hearings, except in cases where the defendant is 
arrested under Section k76P, of the Penal Code (issuing checks with- 
out sufficient funds). We thus have the. opportunity of investigat- 
ing the facts, examining the testimony of complaining witnesses, 
and studying the transcript after the defendant has been held to 

- 2 - 



answer In the Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of 
the guilty — it is only to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial. We endeavor to expedite trials and op- 
pose unnecessary delays. This indirectly saves the county money, 
and prevents clogging of calendars. To permit a case to drag 
through the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the ac- 
cused, especially when the defendants are unable to post bail and 
are in custody pending the disposition of their cases. Since al- 
most all of our clients are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to 
shorten the time between the arrest of the accused and his con- 
viction cr acquittal. 

We strive to give the indigent the best quality of le- 
gal service. Each case is given the same care and attention as 
that provided by the best legal talent in this area, irrespective 
cf race, creed or ability to pay. 

We exercise extreme care and caution in order to be cer- 
tain that none but those eligible for legal service by the Public 
Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial 
inability to employ private counsel are required cf all defendants 
in felony cases. 

Legal assistance to the destitute in criminal cases 
affects the life cf every individual in the community. Of equally 
vital importance is the adequate protection cf the innocent end 
just treatment of the guilty. 

The Sixth Amendment cf the Federal Constitution and Sec- 
tion 13, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of California 

- 3 - 



- ** '''■■■.■, 

■'■ ■ ... . ■ ■ • • 



. i ■ ■ 

. . ;.. n ....... . 

■ - 



■ ; : 



require, among other things, that in all criminal prosecutions the 
accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

It is also part of our duties to handle applications for 
persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights by filing 
certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, 
as set forth in Section 4-852.01 to 4-852 of the Penal Code. In the 
last fiscal year, we started proceedings under these statutes for 
33 persons. 

INVESTIGATOR 

The function of the investigator is to relieve the deputy 
defenders of the time-consuming task cf locating witnesses end mak- 
ing field checkups in securing evidence and accurate information 
on the cases being handled. Experience proves that this work can 
be done better and more economically by an investigator than by 
the attcrney who is not trained for it. The time saved, moreover, 
permits the attorney to handle more trial work and to try cases 
more expeditiously by reason of the quality of the investigations. 
The resulting economies far exceed the cost of the investigator. 

APPEALS 

Appeals to the higher court arc made when the facts and 
circumstances warrant such action, for we strive to prevent exces- 
sive sentences and injustice. During the last fiscal year, our 
office filed six appeals — one in the Supreme Court and five in the 
District Court of Appeals. We also filed several writs in the Su- 
perior Court (Writs of Habeas Corpus and Prohibition). 

. k . 



?. '■ R3GNNEL 

The office consists of the following personnel: 
Public Defender 
Chief Deputy Defender 
3 senior attorneys handling felony cases 

in the Superior Court 
3 junior attorneys handling misdemeanor 
oases and preliminary hearings of 
felony cases in the Municipal Court 
1 investigator 
1 legal stenographer 
1 general clerk- stenographer 
The attorneys devote full time to their duties, and. are 
not permitted to carry on private court practice during office 
hours. 

Offices srj located at 700 Montgomery Street, Third 
Floor, San Francisco 11, California; telephone 3xbrcok 2-1535. 

■sfr •55- .;- -w- & # 4t Me # <t 

KISDSN^ANCH CAS IS HANDL5D IN y . UNI CIPAL COURT 

Since February of 1955, our office has represented Indi- 
gents in misdemeanor cases. 

Experience has shown that there is g greater possibility 
of a miscarriage of justice -t the misdemeanor level than at the 
felony level. This is due to the fact that beforu a trial and 
conviction in s felony case there must have been a preliminary 
screening before a Crand Jury or a Committing Magistrate. 

It is generally admitted that a person charged with a 
misdemeanor who is unable to employ counsel has the same right to 

- 5 - 



a fair trial and an adequate presentation of his defense as a per- 
son charged with a mere serious offense. Any other procedure would 
prevent effective administration of justice, as well as fail to 
provide equal justice fcr all. 

No one suggests that representation by attorneys is a 
prerequisite to justice in such minor offenses as drunkenness, 
traffic violations, vagrancy and the like. For the most part, they 
are disposed of with relative informality within the simple frame- 
work of procedure by elected magistrates who are chosen by the 
people-. There are, however, en increasing number of so-called mi- 
nor offenses or misdemeanors which present more complex issues or 
carry more severe penalties. Serious and unanticipated consequen- 
ces may fellow when r>n uninformed .and inexperienced person pleads 
guilty to save time cr trouble or to win an expected suspension 
of sentence. There is no wry to measure this need. It is essen- 
tially l. local problem to which each community should be alert. 
In larger cities, the need is clearly demonstrated, although there 
are no adequate figures by which to measure volume. 

Approximately seventy-five per cent of defendants in cri- 
minal misdemeanor cases are unable to employ counsel. 

During this fiscal year, there was an Increase of more 
than 100$ in cases handled by our office in misdemeanors. 

We do not represent defendants in all misdemeanor cases, 
such rs all vagrants and common drunks. We do, however, handle 
feome persons charged with drunkenness cr v-.grancy who have buen 
ill or mentally incompetent and in need of immediate referral to 
another agency. We have been able to dispose of such cases effec- 
tively by training cur deputies in the ability to ascertain quickly 

- 6 - 



such situations and to be able to recommend to the court referral 
to the proper agency. 

Through a continued process of trial and error, with the 
co-cperction and support of our Municipal Court Judges, we are fast 
discovering Just what type of misdemeanor cases should be handled 
by the Public Defender. 

Today many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors 
and c;:rry severe penalties. Cur experience has convinced us that 
our constant presence in the Municipal Court greatly decreases the 
possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy 
and equitable disposition of many cases. 

DLFLWDANT3 7L..-,ra:j Sl?;KT5D IN MISDEI^AMCa CAS.^ S 1956-5? 1955-56 
Xumber of defendants represented 
Charges filed against said defendants 
Number of cppearances made 

DI SPOSITION CF :-:l3D.iir-!BAN0H CASES 1956-57 1955-56 

Defendants plead guilty 

Defendants found guilty 

Defendants dismissed or discharged 

Defendants found net guilty 

Taken ever by private counsel 

Motions to revoke probation 

Granted - 12 Denied - 4 
Certified to Juvenile Court - minors S 4 

Motions to reduce or modify sentences 4 4 

Special appearances 29 14 

- 7 - 



2220 


1057 


3^12 


1624 


3749 


1859 



342 


149 


767 


44o 


629 


251 


220 


116 


106 


49 


16 


19 



10 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


20 


6 


9 





3 





51 


3S 



Warrants issued 

Withdrew as attorney 

Cases still pending 

Hospitalized 

Bail forfeited 

Certified to Superior Court as sex psychopath 
under provisions of 5501 W&I Code 

Jury demands 

Note:- Many of the cases listed above, showing that 
defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, after a court hearing, the judge found the 
evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, 
and therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 

DI3PCSIT ICN OF CA3E3 I N WHICH JDEF EN PANTS EITH ER _ P LEAD 3UILTY CR 
WE EE FO U'J D GUILTY. CR PRGBA TICN WAS REVOKED 



Committed to County Jail 

Defendants fined 

Defendants fined with Jail time 

Sentenced to time served 

Suspended sentence 

Suspended sentence and fine or restitution 

Probation granted 

Probation with suspended sentence 

Probation with suspended sentence and restitu- 
tion or fine 

Probation with restitution and/or fine 

Probation with jail time 

Probation with jail time and restitution or fine 

Hospitalized 

Totals:- 1172 589 
- 8 - 



1956-57 


1955-56 


382 


270 


96 


61 


5 





21 


1 


279 


75 


17 


6 


26 


2h 


168 


72 


69 


23 


57 


3^ 


3^ 


13 


Ik 


Ur 


i* 


6 



• ; '•::•-. 





1956-57 


1955-56 




48 


38 




^ 


30 




4 


8 



DEMANDS FOR JURY TRIALS IM ?■: ISDZKEANC 5 CASES 

Demands for jury trials 
Waived demand fcr jury trial 
Actual Jury trials 

Pound not guilty 1 

Found guilty 2 

Pending 1 

DISPOS ITION OF OTHER FORTY- FOUR CASi.3 AFTJi REFERRAL TO TRIAL JUDGE 

Plead guilty 13 

Found guilty 12 

Dismissed 14 

Found not guilty 3 

Bail forfeited 2 

It is interesting to note the marked reduction of jury 
trials In criminal cases in the Municipal Court since the Public 
Defender's staff was increased in February of 1955, and represen- 
tation given to indigents in misdemeanor cases, even though the 
case load has increased. 

In 1954 there were 150 jury trials in the Municipal Court; 
in 1955, 112 jury trials; in 1956, 64 jury trials. 

The Public Defender first appeared in representing defen- 
dants in misdemeanor cases and in jury trials in February of 1955. 

From February to June 30, 1955, although 2? demands were 
made for jury trials, there were actually only five of said demands 

- 9 - 



that went to jury trials after consultation and advice furnished 
to said defendants by the Public Defender's office. The othur 22 
casus were referred back to the Court for determination cud dis- 
posal by the judge. 

During thu fiscal year 1955-56, 38 duf^ndants demanded 
jury trir-ls, only eight of whom actually went to trial before- a 
jury. 

In this fiscal year, there were 43 demands for jury 
trial, and only four actually went for trial before b jury. 

When one considers the fact that it costs approximately 
.-150.00 the first day for jury fees alone In Municipal Court cri- 
minal cases (each and every juror who appears in these esses is 
paid £5.00 a day, whether he serves as a juror or not), together 
with other costs of approximately $190.00 a day for bailiffs, 
court clerks, the judge's, District Attorney's and Public Defen- 
der's time in trying actual jury cases, this means considerable 
saving hes resulted since the Public Defender has been represent- 
ing defendants in misdemeanor cases. By giving immediate" represen- 
tation to defendants, we have been able to eliminate many demands 
that have heretofore been made for jury trials in this Court. 

Most misdemeanor cases crrry penalties of a fine cr im- 
prisonment in the County Jail for net more than six months, or 
both fine end imprisonment . 

The main charges filed against misdemeanants handled by 
the Public Defond-^r were: 

- 10 - 



Section 647 md 647a 
Penal Cede 



Vagrants (12 classifications) 



Charges 
532 



Many of these are pddicts who are booked as vagrants, 
as well as under Section 11721 of the Health & Safety 
Code and 240a & b Penal Cede. 



Section 152 

S. F. Police Code 

£1000 Vag. 



Drunkenness in public places 



Special bookings 



This is a special booking where bail is set rt £.1,003, 
which defendants are usually unable to raise. It is 
used whun the police wish to check era said defendants 
or suspect their implicrtion in c crime. 



Section ^88 
Penal Code 

Section 11721 
Health & Safety Code 

Section 242 

S. P. Police Code 

Section 148 
Penal Code 

f a.,'- U ' ■■ ■' ': 

irolic^ eode 



Petty theft 



Punishment of addicts 
(Narcotics) 



281 
212 



Battery 



Resisting public officers in 
the discharge of their duties 

:■,.. I - a Lnlecsi '■ \a :.<s - c "" 

any ecu of prostitution 

b. Offering to secure another 
for the purpose of committing 
an act of prostitution 



195 
185 
113 

71 

59 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MCT0B VEHICLES 



i 



Section 502 
Vehicle Code 

Section 6? 

S. P. Traffic Code 



Section 510 
Vehicle Code 

Section 274b 
Vehicle Code 



Driving under influence of 
liquor 



91 



Drunkenness in or about an auto- 
mobile in a public street — si? id 
automobile being under his imme- 
diate' control or right to access 83 

Driving in excess of speed 

limit 36 

Driving without having license 

in possession 33 



- 11 - 






Charges 

Section 504 - Injuring or tampering with 

Vehicle Code vehicle 30 

Section 332a - Driving without license, when 11- 

Vehicle Code cunsc has been refused, suspended 

or revoked 13 

Section 481 - Hit-i*un property damage 13 

Vehicle Code 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Muni- 
cipal Court rise handle preliminary hearings in felony cases. This 
includes arraignments and pleas before the Committing Magistrate, 
and hearings to determine whether said defendants should be held 
to answer en said felony charges in the Superior Court, In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each 
felony. Deputies also conduct interviews with the defendants, im- 
mediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, in 
the County Jail, tc prepare for their defense and determine whether 
an investigation is necessary tc prep- re for trial. 

* a- x * # •::- # # # * 

PR ELIMINARY HEARINGS CN F E LONY CAS.vS IN MUNICIPAL CCUET AND 
o UVE^IL^. CiULT - FISCAL Y V AR 1956-57 . 

Defendants represented - .- Municipal - 1181 

- Juvenile - 245 1426 

Charges filed against defendants - Municipal - 1630 

- Juvenile 255 1885 

Number of appearances made by deputies - Municipal - 2827 

- Juvenile - 482 3309 

- 12 - 



DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASKS 



Defendants held to answer 

Defendants dismissed cr discharged 

Taken over by private counsel 

Indicted by Grand Jury 
Certified to Superior Court 
Special appearances made 

Fugitives appeared for 

Charges reduced to misdemeanors 
Referred to Juvenile Court (minors) 
Held mentally ill and hospitalized 
Bench warrant 



Note: Fugitives - Most all fugitives waived extra- 
dTt'ibn or were ordered extradited. Seven requests 
dismissed, and one defendant was released after hea 



Municipal 

Juvenile 

Municipal 
Juvenile 

Municipal 
Juvenile 

Municipal 

Municipal 

Municipal 
Juvenile 



Municipal 

Municipal 



517 

69 


586 


154 
132 


286 


137 
_27 


164 




89 




8 


15 
J3 


23 




60 




144 




8 




5 




1 


were 




ring. 





£ H:DUC:?.D CHASSIS - 144 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the de- 
fendant enters a plea, of guilty at the hearing to a lesser in- 
cluded offense (misdemeanor) , and the felony charge is dismissed. 

The 144 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors 
were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 50 

Sentenced to County Jail with fine or restitution 2 

Given probation with suspended sentence 27 



Given probation with suspended sentence and fine or 
restitution 

Given probation with restitution or fine 



15 
9 



- 13 - 



Given probation with restitution or Jail time 14 

Given probation with Jell time 12 

Given probation 3 

Given suspended sentence 7 

Pined 4 

atenced to time served 2 

Total:- 144 

F?LC1CY CAoTJS 

By reason of the fact that deputies are now available 
ct all times in the Municipal Court, ? larger percentage of the 
felony complaints are disposed of in said courts by dismissal or 
by pit. as to misdemeanor charges after the frets are heard. This 
his reduced the number of defendants who otherwise would have 
been held tc answer and stand trial in the Superior Court, Each 
time a case is disposed of in the Municipal Court, the calendar 
of the Superior Court is expedited, and a substantial saving is 
nr do to the City and County. 

The Municipal Court deputies, trained in criminal law, 
oan thoroughly cross-examine a prosecuting witness to discover 
the actual facts. This aids the Committing Magistrate in deter- 
mining whether or not a crime was, in fact, committed, and, if 
so, whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor. We receive tran- 
scripts of the testimony, in the event the defendant is held to 
answer to the Superior Court, which are of material assistance in 
procuring an early disposition of the case in the Superior Court. 
This is evidenced by the number of picas in the Superior Court, 
less jury trials end more reduced charges. 

- 14 - 



FELONY CASES HANDLED 3Y SUPERIOR COURT PCB TVs. FISCAL YHAH 1956-57 



Old Csses 



New Cases 



Total : - 



112 
812 



924 



NT": 1,1 n a qt, c 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in 

Municipal Court 586 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 8 

Indicted by Grand Jury 89 

Appointed by court to represent defendants in 

Superior Court 129 

Total :- 

Total number of court appearances mad-: by deputies 
in above cases :- 



812 
41 6? 



* * tt it -:s- * -it •* ■» » 



DISPOSITION C? SUPERIOR COURT CASL]S 



Defendants plead guilty 

Defendants found guilty 

By jury 
By court 



76 

49 



356 
125 



Defendants plead guilty to lesser included offenses 45 
Defendants found guilty of lesser included offenses 9 



Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty 

By jury 
By court 

Mentally ill cases 

Found mentally ill 
Found net ill 



33 
17 



9 

8 



6 

1 



- 15 - 



Substituted by private counsel 71 

Special appearances on appointment by court 48 

Motions to revoke probation (new cases) 32 

(Does not include cases whore motion is made when 
new charges are filed against the defendants) 

Granted 22 

Denied 4 

Withdrawn 1 

Modified 5 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 11 

Motion to expunge record 5 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex 

psychopaths) 9 

Rehabilitation granted 7 

Withdrew as counsel - conflict of interest or 

financial reason 5 

Defendants in propria persona - Public Defender 

in advisory capacity 1 

Miscellaneous : 

Habeas Corpus 2 
Alcoholics 2 

Coram Mob is 1 5 

Cases closed during year (old and new) 736 

Cases still pending (end of fiscal year) 138 

Total:- 92^ 

FINAL DISPOSITION CF SUPIEICR CQTJrlT CA3L3 IN WHICH 
DJi FEUDAhlTS HAVE FLEA J eUILTY OR VjEKIl FOUND GUILTY 

Death penalty (under appeal) 1 

Defendants sentenced to San Quentin 154 

Defendants sentenced to San Quentin- -sentence 

suspended on condition County Jail time is served 3 

Defendants sentenced to County Jail 216 

- 16 - 



' 



Defendants sentenced to Corona 6 

Defendants sentenced to time served 8 

Probation granted 28 

Probation granted with suspended sentence 14 

Probation granted - County Jail time imposed 11 

Probation granted - County Jail time imposed 

with restitution or fine 4 

Probation granted with restitution or fine 25 

Committed to Youth Authority 38 

Referred to Juvenile Court 1 

Recommitted fcr indefinite period 4 

Committed to State hospitals 8 

Total:- 551 

M UMBSR OF MAJOR CHARGES IN F^IOY CASE'S HAriL'L- .D 
IN SUPERIOR COURT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1956-57 



A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the 
State Penitentiary. This may include the penalty of death. When 
the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a 
county jail, within the discretion of the court, it shall be 
deemed to be a misdemeanor fcr all purposes after a judgment has 
been rendered imposing a punishment ether than imprisonment in 
the 3t<-t„ Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Pub- 
lic Defender in the Superior Court in and for the City and County 
of San Francisco fall into the following categories (we have listed 
only these code sections wherein 20 or more charges have been 
filed against defendants ) : 

- 17 - 



Charges 



to ■ 



Section k5$ - Burglary 244 

Pencil Code 

Section 211 - Robbery 225 

Penal Code 

Section 467 - Grand theft 124 

Penal Code 

Section 11500 - Possession of narcotics 179 

Health & Safety Code 

Section 503 - Theft of vehicle 74 

Vehicle Cede 

Kote: In booking defendant under this section, the 
arresting officer usually also charges the defendant 
under Section 487 of the Penal Code (grand theft). 

Section 470 - Forgery 71 

Penal Code 

Section 245 - Assault with a deadly weapon 46 

Penal Code 

Section 288 - Crime against children; lewd or 24 

Penal Code lascivious acts 

Section 4?6e - Issuance of checks with 87 

Penal Code insufficient funds 

Section 26l - Rape 30 

Penal Code 

Section 182 - Criminal conspire cy 27 

Penal Uode 

Section 217 - Assault with intent to commit murder 20 
Penal Cede 



MURDS 



CASES 



During the year, the Public Defender represented 15 de- 
fendants charged with murder. They were disposed of as follows: 
3 were found guilty of manslaughter. 

2 were found guilty of secend degree murder (now on 
- ppeal ) . 

1 was held guilty of first degree murder, with death 
penalty (on automatic appeal). 

1 plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

- 18 - 



2 plead guilty to 1st degree murder 

3 plead guilty to manslaughter 
3 employed private counsel 



# # # *- * * « * * # 

SPECIA L CASES HANDLED 3 Y THE PUBL IC DE ^"NP^ R IN THE JUVENILE COURT— 
A DIVISIO N OF THE SUPERIOR C OURT 

Section 702 

welfare f. Institutions Go de 

The Public Defender represented the accused In 176 esses 
brought under Section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of 
the State of California (contributing to the delinquency of miners). 
Although the cases covered under this section are misdemeanors, 
they are all tried in the Juvenile Court, a division of the Superi- 
or Court of San Francisco, 

The result of our work is as follows: 
Defendants dismissed 121 

Defendants held to answer 30 

Defendants held to answer on greater offense 4 

Defendants referred to Juvenile Division or C.Y.A. 10 
Taken over by private counsel 11 

Total:- 176 

Those defendants who were held to answer were disposed 
of as follows: 

Plea of guilty to lesser and included offense 4 

Plea of guilty 17 

Pound guilty after trial 3 

Certified to Juvenile Court 1 

- 19 - 



Dismissed 2 

Taken over by private counsel 3 

Total:- 30 

Those defendants who plead guilty or were found guilty 
were disposed of as follows: 

County Jail 1^ 

Probation 5 

Committed to Youth Authority 1 

County Jail and fine as condition of probation 1 

County Jail as condition of probation 1 

Probation and fine 1 

Suspended sentence and probation 1 

Total:- 2k 

S ection 2.6l 

Penal Code 



Our office defended 30 persons accused of violation of 
Section 26l of the Penal Code (rape). This is a felony, and the 
punishment is confinement in the State Prison for not more than 
fifty yuars. Most of the cases handled by this office are those 
in which the female prosecutrix is under the age of 18 years, in 
which case the punishment is either confinement in the County Jail 
for net more than a year or confinement in the State Prison for 
not more than fifty years. If the trial is by jury, the jury may 
recommend imprisonment either in the County Jail or the State Pe- 
nitentiary. 

The result of our work is as follows: 
Defendants held to answer 1^ 

- 20 - 



Defendants dismissed k- 

Defendants held en lesser offense 1 

Defendants found net guilty 2 

Taken over by private counsel 8 

Defendants certified to Youth Authority, Juvenile 1 
Division 

Total:- 30 

Those defendants who were held to answer were disposed 

of rs follows: 

Plea of guilty to 261.1 PC 8 

Found guilty of lesser and included offense of 

261*1 PC - jury recommended County Jail sent .nee 3 

Taken over by private attorney 1 

Pound net guilty 2 

Total:- " 1^ 

Those defendants who plead guilty or were found guilty 
were disposed of as follows: 

County Jail 5 

County Jail with suspended sentence 1 

Prcbatlcn 1 

Suspended sent-, ace and probation 2 
Suspended sentence and fine as condition of probation 2 

Total:- 11 

Section 288 
P enal Codu 

There were ?M ccses cf violation of Section 283 cf the 

Penal Code (crimes against children; lewd and lascivicus acts) 

- 21 - 



in which the services of the Public Defender were required. The 
gist of the crime consists of acts dealing with minors under 1^ 
yerrs of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to or grati- 
fying the lust or passion or sexual desires of such person or of 
such child. It is a felony punishable by confinement in the State 
Prison for a period of from one year to life. Section 288.1 of 
the Penal Code provides that convicted persons, before being eli- 
gible for probation cr parole, shall be examined by a reputable 
psychiatrist for a report as to their mental condition. These 
proceedings arc; under Sections 5500 to 5516 of the welfare and 
Institutions Code of the State of California. 

The result of our work is as follows: 
Defendants held to answer 12 

Defendants specially appeared for 1 

Defendants dismissed k 

Taken over by private counsel 7 

Total:- 2k- 

Those defendants who were held to answer were disposed 
of as follows: 

Plea of guilty 3 

Plea of guilty to lesser and included offense 2 

Dismissed 2 

Found guilty after trial 4 

Pound not guilty after trial 1 

Total:- 12 

- 22 - 



Those defendants who plead guilty or were found guilty 

were disposed of as follows: 

County Jail 2 

Probation 2 

Committed to Atasoadjero State Hqspital for indeter- 
minate period under Sections 5500-5516 tf&I Code 3 

Probation and fine 1 

Sentenced to State Prison 1 

Total : - 9 

Defendants arc usually referred to the State Hospital at 
Atrscaxlerc under the Welfare and Institutions Cede sections re- 
f erred to hereinabove, for a period of 90 days. During this period 
of time, -..11 proceedings are suspended, pending examination and re- 
port as to whether or not the accused is a sex psychopath. If he 
is held to be a sex psychopath, he is committed to Atascadero fcr 
treatment fcr an indefinite period; if net, he is sentenced by 
the Judge of the Juvenile Court, or probation is given. 

Those whe h^ve been committed tc Atascadero for treat- 
ment are subsequently returned from the hospital to the Juvenile 
Court for further hearing. 

The Public Defender represent od nine defendants in such 
subsequent hearings during thi. past year, which were dispose! of 
as follows: 

County J:.il 1 

Probation 1 

3aii Q,uentin 3 

Recommitted fcr an indefinite period 4 



- 23 - 



INVESTIGATOR 

In February, 1955, n n experienced Investigator was added 
tc the staff cf the Public Defender's office of the City and County 
cf San Francisco to aid the deputies in the defense of their coses. 
It is obvious that if the court and the jury rr^ to deal intelli- 
gently with defendants ^nd render proper judgments, ell of the 
frets and circumstances must be known tc the deputy so that the 
case may bu feirly and clearly presented in ccurt. 

The Investigator ' s duties are comparable to those cf 
investigators employed in any private lew office cr by the Dis- 
trict Attorney's office; namely, to locate, interview end secur._ 
signed statements from witnesses, in addition to making field in- 
vestigations cf ccses essigned tc him by trial deputies. In cer- 
tain coses, it is impossible, without an investigator, to ascor- 
tain the true frets; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can 
determine from the date aocumulated-*-regardless cf whether the 
information discovered proves unfavcreble to the sccust;d--the 
guilt or innocence cf the defendant, ^s well es find mitigating 
circumstances . 

As a result cf acquiring the services Df on investiga- 
te r, the work of the office in these cases investigated has re- 
sulted in substantial economies which ere reflected by the number 
cf dismissals, reduction of jury and ccurt triel days and pleas 
received. In sever?! cases, discovered evidence hes resulted in 
shewing the complete innocence cf certain defendants, although 
at first the evidence appeared strongly to indicate the guilt cf 
the defendant. 

- 2k - 



With careful investigation, it is possible to eliminate 
many miscarriages cf Justice, and reduce to a minimum long Jury 
trie Is. Investigations arm the deputy in advance with a complete 
picture of the evidence tc be presented, which he can then ana- 
lyze to aid him in trying the c?se expeditiously. 

Whll^ services of an Investigator have resulted in sub- 
stantial savings in trial costs, at no time are the rights cf the 
accuse! person sacrificed to his detriment . 

# # # * * ff -Vr ft •* tt 

During the fiscal year, the Investigator handled 192 
selected cr-3es--s-:m^ representing mere than one defendant s.nl mere 
than one charge « 

The outcome of these 192 investigate! cosus was as fallows 

Def en rants found guilty 57 

Sentenced to San Q,uentin 23 

S ent once " t c Cc unt y Jai 1 17 

Received probation 11 

Committed to AUsc-lero 3 

Rof <^rre I to Youth Authority 3 

Defendants plead guilty 4 7 

Sentence.), to San ^uentin 11 

Sentenced tc County Jail 24 

Received, probation 10 

Comaitt^: to Atasoaoer^ 1 

Sentence J to Corona 1 

Defendants found not guilty 16 

Cases dismissed 21 

Takun over by private counsel after investigation 11 

Special investigations 13 

Ruciprccol investigations 9 

Cases still pending for trial 8 



- 25 - 



Interviews 739 

Subpoenas served . 153 

# * ft *t # ff # #• •W- tt 

BUDG.TT FOIi Til? FISCAL YEAR 1956 - 1957 

Salaries | 96,365.00 

Temporary Salaries 275.00 

Contractual Services 1,535.00 

Allowance for use cf Investigator's Car 300.00 

Materials :.nl Supplies 1, 306.00 

Law Becks - - 

Equipment 717.00 

Fixed Charges - Rent - Duos 6,750.00 



TOTAL:- £107, 243.00 

BUIG^T FOR THE FISCAL Y?:A£ 1957 - 1958 

Salaries | 95,^35.00 

Temporary Salaries 290.00 

Contractual Services 2,192.00 

Allowance for use cf Investigator's Car 250.00 

Mr- tori?, Is ana Supplies 1, 262.00 

Law Books 300.00 

Equipment 75.00 

Pixee Charges - Rent - Dues 6,750.00 



TOTAL:- ^109,55^.00 



RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 



Municipal Court 



Misdemeanors 


2220 


Felonies 


1*4-26 




924 



Superior Cc urt 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED:- 4570 



APPEARANCES 



Municipal Court 

Superior Court 

TOTAL APPEARANCES:- 



Mis demeanors 


3?49 


Felonies 


3309 




4167 



ESTIMATED COST 



P3r lefendant (approximately) ',21.08 

Per appearance (approximately) 9.52 



- 27 - 



ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1957 TO JUNE 30, 1958 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 
33 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads 
as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a 
defendant who is financially unable to employ counsel, or upon 
order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to any per- 
son charged with the commission of a crime." 



00 cu^ sDtPT 

SEP S ° ^ 



FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, as a matter of right, have counsel to represent 
him is still in the process of development. There is a growing recognition that this principle is basic to a 
sound administration of justice, and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding individual liberties. 

There can be no equality before the law in a criminal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prose- 
cuting attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his command the entire resources of the police 
for investigation, is matched against a poor and often friendless defendant, confined in jail, unable to under- 
stand even the simplest legal implications of the charges against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is jxnverless to marshal any facts to controvert them. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 1921, paving the way for the establishment of the 
Public Defender system in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it was not until 
February, 1955, that this office was able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony 
cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, which includes those from the Peninsula and the 
Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial; that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found guilty; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, 
generally, to see that each defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, under 
our Federal and State constitutions. 

Where the facts justify, we advise a plea of guilty to the felony charge, or to a lesser included offense. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at the preliminary hearings, except in certain cases, 
particularly where the defendant is arrested under Section 476A of the Penal Code (issuing checks without 
sufficient funds). We thus have the opportunity of investigating the facts in each case and of examining the 
testimony of the witnesses, and studying the transcript after the defendant has been held to answer to the 
Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty — it is only to see that each defendant is 
granted a fair and impartial trial. We endeavor to expedite trials and oppose unnecessary delays. This saves 
the county considerable money, and prevents clogging of court calendars. To permit a case to drag through 
the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the accused, especially when the defendants we represent are 
unable to post bail and are in custody pending the disposition of their cases. Since almost all of our clients 
are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten the time between the arrest of the accused and the disposition 
of his case. 

The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

25% Under 30 days 

42% 31 to 60 days 

20% 61 to 90 days 

13% Over 90 days 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sentenced 
and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the time after trial 
and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. This period of 
time is 3 weeks. Most of the cases in the 61 to 90 day period are disposed of within the first 70 days. 



Those cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant — some 
represented by private counsel ; cases where there was more than one trial ; cases involving capital crimes and 
cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

In every one of the above cases the trial thereof started within the statutory period of 60 days from the date 
of arraignment. 

We strive to give the indigent the best quality of legal service. Each case is given the same care and 
attention as that provided by the best legal talent in this area, irrespective of race, creed or ability to pay. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ private counsel are 
required of all defendants in felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is questioned as to family responsibility 
and other possible assets. 

Legal assistance to the indigent in criminal cases affects the life of every individual in the community. Of 
equally vital importance is the adequate protection of the innocent and just treatment of the guilty. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights 
by filing certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 
4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

INVESTIGATOR 

The function of the investigator is to relieve the deputy Public Defenders of the time-consuming task of 
locating witnesses and making field checkups in securing evidence and accurate information on the cases 
being handled. Experience proves that this work can be done more efficiently and economically by an experi- 
enced investigator than by the attorney who is not trained for investigation work. This time saved, moreover, 
permits the attorney to handle more trial work and to try cases more expeditiously by reason of the quality of 
the investigations. The resulting justice and economies far exceed the cost of the investigator. 

APPEALS 

Appeals to the higher courts are taken only when the facts and circumstances warrant such action, for we 
strive to prevent excessive sentences and injustice. During the last fiscal year, our office appeared on 9 Appeals 
and Writs in the Appellate Courts. A death penalty case was reversed by the Supreme Court and reduced to 
second degree murder as the result of one of our appeals. 

PERSONNEL 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 
Public Defender 
Chief Assistant Public Defender 

4 senior attorneys handling felony cases in the Superior Court 

3 junior attorneys handling misdemeanor cases and preliminary hearings of felony cases in the Munic- 
ipal Court 
1 Investigator 

1 Confidential Secretary — Legal 
1 general Clerk-Stenographer 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice during 
office hours. 

Our offices are located at the 700 Montgomery Building, 580 Washington Street, Third Floor, San Fran- 
cisco n, California; telephone EXbrook 2-1535. 



MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Since February of 1955, our office has represented indigents in misdemeanor cases. 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 



level than at the felony level. This is due to the fact that before a trial and conviction in a felony case there 
must have been a preliminary screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a Committing Magistrate. 

It is generally conceded that a person charged with a misdemeanor who is unable to employ counsel has 
the same right to a fair trial and an adequate presentation of his defense as a person charged with a more 
serious offense. Any other procedure would prevent effective administration of justice, as well as a failure to 
provide equal justice for all. 

No one suggests that representation by attorneys is a prerequisite to justice in such minor offenses as 
drunkenness or traffic violations. For the most part, these cases are disposed of with relative informality within 
the simple framework of procedure by elected magistrates who are chosen by the people. There are, however, 
an increasing number of so-called minor offenses or misdemeanors which present more complex issues and 
carry severe penalties; some even more serious sentences than some felony cases in the Superior Court. Serious 
and unanticipated consequences may follow when an uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to 
save time or trouble or to win an expected suspension of sentence. There is no way to measure these circum- 
stances. It is essentially a local problem for each community. In larger cities, the need is clearly demonstrated, 
although there are no adequate figures by which to measure the volume of cases. 

More than seventy-five per cent of defendants in criminal misdemeanor cases are unable to employ counsel. 

Since 1955, in each fiscal year there has been a substantial increase of cases handled by our office in mis- 
demeanors, increasing from 1057 defendants in 1955-56 to 2865 defendants in 1957-58. 

We do not represent defendants in all misdemeanor cases, such as all vagrants and common drunks. We 
do, however, handle some of these cases when appointed by the Trial Judge, of persons charged with drunk- 
enness or vagrancy or those defendants who may be ill or mentally incompetent or in need of immediate 
legal assistance. We have been able to dispose of such cases effectively by training our deputies to ascertain 
quickly the legal issues in such situations and to be able to recommend to the court a legal disposition or a 
referral to the proper agency. 

Through a continued process of trial and error, with the cooperation and support of our Municipal Court 
judges, all of whom have been completely cooperative in working out this problem, we are fast discovering just 
what type of misdemeanor cases should be handled by the Public Defender in our community. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and carry severe penalties, our experience has 
convinced us that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a deputy Public Defender greatly decreases 
the possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many cases. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 

Number of defendants represented 1057 2220 2865 

Charges filed against defendants 1624 3412 4683 

Number of appearances made by deputies 1859 3749 5027 

In the fiscal year 1957-58 we kept records of the num- 
ber of defendants who were women. Of the defend- 
ants, 319 were women, or a little over 11%. 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1955-56 

Defendants plead guilty 149 

Defendants found guilty 440 

Defendants dismissed or discharged 251 

Defendants found not guilty 116 

Taken over by Private Counsel 49 

Motions to Revoke Probation — New 19 

Granted, 8 ; Modified, 5 

Certified to Juvenile Court — Minors 4 8 16 






1956-57 


I957-58 


342 


469 


767 


932 


629 


777* 


220 


425 


106 


135 


l6 


13 



4 


3 


2 9 


21 




I 




5 


10 


10 


3 


45 


3 


i 


20 


7 


9 


i 


3 


5 


5i 


%!• 



Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 4 

Special Appearances 14 

Motions to Expunge Records — Granted 

Defendants Committed — Mentally 111 

Warrants Issued 3 

Made Bail — Public Defender Withdrew 3 

Cases still pending 3 

Hospitalized 6 

Bail Forfeited 

Certified to S. C. as Sex Psychopath under Provision of 

Sec. 5501 W&I Code 

Jury Demands 38 

*Note 1 : Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and 
therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 

fNote 2: It is interesting to note the marked reduction of actual jury trials in criminal cases in the Munici- 
pal Court since the Public Defender's staff was increased in February of 1955, and representation given to 
indigents in misdemeanor cases, even though the misdemeanor case load has considerably increased. In 
1954 there were 150 jury trials and in 1957, 80 jury trials. During the fiscal year 1957-58, 63 defendants 
represented by the Public Defender demanded jury trials, only two of whom actually went to trial before 
a jury. 

Usually after consultation and advice furnished to said defendants by the Public Defender's office, the 
defendant consents to having his case referred back to the Court for determination and disposal by the 
Judge. 

When one considers the fact that it costs approximately $150.00 the first day for jury fees alone in 
Municipal Court criminal cases (each and every juror who appears in these cases is paid $5.00 a day, 
whether he serves as a juror or not), together with other costs of approximately $190.00 a day for bailiffs, 
court clerks, the Judge's, District Attorney's and Public Defender's time in trying actual jury cases, this 
means considerable saving has resulted since the Public Defender has been representing defendants in 
misdemeanor cases. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
EITHER PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 

Committed to County Jail 270 382 369 

Fined 61 96 146 

Fined with Jail Time 5 25 

Sentenced to Time Served 1 21 21 

Suspended Sentence 75 279 229 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 6 17 8 

Probation Granted 24 26 86 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 72 168 211 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 23 69 82 

Probation with Restitution or Fine 34 57 I0 7 

Probation with Jail Time 13 34 95 

Probation with Jail Time — Restitution or Fine 4 14 5 

Released to Catholic Societies 6 4 1 

Hospitalized 6 4 12 

Bench Warrants Issued 2 

Held as Sex Psychopaths 2 

589 1172 1401 



28l 


343 


195 


348 


185 


228 


"3 


211 


7i 


152 



Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 

THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1956-57 1957-58 

Section 647 and 647a— Penal Code— Vagrants (12 classifications) 532 934 

Many of these are addicts who are booked as vagrants, as well as under 
Section 11721 of the Health & Safety Code and 240a & b Penal Code. 

Section 647.5 — Penal Code 255 

Every lewd or dissolute person or every person who loiters in or about 
public toilets in public parks. 

$1000 Vag. — Special bookings 212 526 

This is a special booking where bail is set at $1,000, which defendants are 
usually unable to raise. It is used when the police wish to check on said 
defendants or suspect their implication in a crime. 

Section 152 — S. F. Police Code — Drunkenness in public places 

Section 488— Penal Code— Petty theft 

Section 11721 — Health & Safety Code 

Punishment of addicts (Narcotics). 

Section 242 — S. F. Police Code — Battery 

Section 148 — Penal Code 

Resisting public officers in the discharge of their duties. 

Section 1291 — Police Code r 92 

Prohibiting loitering while carrying concealed weapon. 

Section 240a & b — Police Code 59 74 

a. Lewd or indecent acts or any act of prostitution, b. Offering to secure 
another for the purpose of committing an act of prostitution. 

MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1956-57 1957-58 

Section 502 — Vehicle Code 91 206 

Driving under influence of liquor. 

Section 67 — S. F. Traffic Code 83 172 

Drunkenness in or about an automobile in a public street — said automobile 
being under his immediate control or right to access. 

Section 274b, 332a — Vehicle Code 46 107 

Driving without having license in possession — or when refused, suspended 
or revoked. 

# # # # # 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hearings 
in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings to deter- 
mine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court. In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies also conduct interviews 
with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, to 
assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to prepare for trial. 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY 

CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND 

JUVENILE COURT 



Defendants represented Municipal 

Juvenile . . 



Total 



Charges filed against defendants Municipal 

Juvenile 



Total 



Number of appearances made by deputies Municipal 

Juvenile . 



1956-57 

1181 

245 


1957-58 

1360 

301 


1426 


1661 


1630 
255 


1779 

347 


1885 


2126 


2827 

482 


3318 
626 



Total 3309 3944 

In the fiscal year of 1957-58 we kept records of the 
number of defendants who were women. Of the 1661 
defendants, 134 were women, or a little over 8%. 

DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1956-57 1957-58 

Defendants Held to Answer 

Municipal 517 647 

Juvenile 69 77 



Total 586 724 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 

Municipal 

Juvenile 



Total 



Taken Over By Private Counsel 

Municipal 

Juvenile 



154 
132 


174 

140 


286 


314 


137 

27 


165 
46 



Total 164 211 

ndicted by Grand Jury 89 52 

Certified to Superior Court 

Municipal 

Juvenile 

Special Appearances Made 

Municipal 

Juvenile 

fugitives Appeared for 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 

leferred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 

rleld Mentally 111 — Hospitalized 



8 


16 




2 


15 


12 


8 


5 


60 


67 


144 


208 


8 


29 


5 


10 



Transferred to Criminal Division — Juvenile 2 

Withdrew As Attorney 8 

Miscellaneous Disposition 1 



Total 1374 1661 

Note: Fugitives — Most fugitives waived extradition or were ordered extradited. 
Twenty-seven requests were dismissed. 

V *W* "tf ^F ^F 

REDUCED CHARGES — 208 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dismissed. This 
prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 208 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 42 

Given probation with suspended sentence 44 

Given probation with suspended sentence and fine or restitution 32 

Given probation with restitution or fine 13 

Given probation with jail time, and fine or restitution 25 

Given probation 9 

Given suspended sentence 33 

Fined 2 

Sentenced to time served 8 

Total 208 

# # # # # 

FELONY CASES I 

By reason of the fact that a deputy is now available at all times in each Municipal Court, a larger percent- 
age of the felony complaints are disposed of in said courts by dismissal or by pleas to misdemeanor charges 
(about 36% last fiscal year) after the facts are heard. This has reduced the number of defendants who other- 
wise would have been held to answer and stand trial in the Superior Court. Each time a case is disposed of 
in the Municipal Court, the calendar of the Superior Court is lessened, and a substantial saving is made to 
the City and County. This also prevents crowding of the County Jail. 

Our Municipal Court deputies, trained in criminal law, thoroughly cross-examine a prosecuting witness 
to discover the actual facts. This aids the Committing Magistrate in determining whether or not a crime was, 
in fact, committed, and, if so, whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor. We receive transcripts of the testi- 
mony, in the event the defendant is held to answer to the Superior Court, which are of material assistance in 
procuring an early disposition of the case in the Superior Court. This is evidenced by the number of pleas of 
guilty in the Superior Court, eliminates many jury trials and enables our office to obtain pleas to reduced 
charges in many cases. 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 
SUPERIOR COURT 

1956-57 1957-58 

Old Cases "2 138 

New Cases (135 with priors) 812 944 

Total 924 1082 

In the fiscal year of 1957-58 we kept records of the 
number of defendants who were women, of the 1082 
represented, 60 were women, or about 5.5%. 






NEW CASES 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal and Juvenile Court .... 586 724 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 8 18 

Indicted by Grand Jury 89 52 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 129 150 



Total 812 



944 



Total number of Court appearances made by deputies in above cases 4167 5778 

DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

1956-57 1957-58 

Defendants plead guilty 356 513 

Defendants found guilty 125 143 

1956-57 1957-58 

By Jury 76 81 

By Court 49 62 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 45 77 

Found guilty of lesser included offenses 9 7 

Defendants dismissed 33 48 

Defendants found not guilty 17 26 

1956-57 1957-58 

By Jury 9 21 

By Court 8 5 

Mentally ill cases 7 6 

Substituted by Private Counsel 71 71 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 48 37 

Motions to revoke probation (new cases) 32 48 

Motion to modify probation or sentence p 

Motion to expunge record 5 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psychopaths) g 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 7 7 

Withdrew as counsel — Conflict of interest or financial reason 5 3 

Miscellaneous: 

Appeal & Writs Filed 9 9 

Cases closed during year (old and new) 786 1031 

Cases still pending (July 25, 1958) 138 51 

Total 924 1082 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 

CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 
PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1957-58 

Death penalty (under appeal) — Reversed to 2nd Degree ! 

Defendants sentenced to San Quentin 271 

Defendants sentenced to County Jail 236 

Defendants sentenced to Corona Q 



Defendants sentenced to time served 2 

Probation granted 28 

Probation granted with suspended sentence 14 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed 71 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed with restitution or fine 16 

Probation granted with restitution or fine 20 

Committed to Youth Authority 66 

Referred to Juvenile Court 3 

Recommitted for indefinite period 13 

Committed to State hospitals 17 

Committed to Vacaville 3 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY 

CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1956-57 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the discretion 
of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fall into the following categories: 

Section 459 — Penal Code — Burglary 

Section 211 — Penal Code — Robbery 

Section 487 — Penal Code — Grand Theft 

Section 11500 — Health & Safety Code — Possession of narcotics 

Section 503 — Vehicle Code — Theft of vehicle 

Note: In booking defendant under this section, the arresting officer usually 

also charges the defendant under Section 487 of the Penal Code. 

Section 470 — Penal Code — Forgery 

Section 476a — Penal Code — Issuance of checks with insufficient funds 

MURDER CASES 

During the year, the Public Defender represented 15 defendants charged with murder. They were disposed 
of as follows : 

1 was found guilty of manslaughter. 

3 were found guilty of second degree murder (2 now on appeal). 

1 plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

1 dismissed. 

1 found insane. 

1 found guilty of 1st degree murder. 

7 employed private counsel. 



1956-57 


1957-58 


244 


339 


225 


242 


124 


195 


179 


209 


74 


139 


7i 


88 


87 


82 



SPECIAL CASES HANDLED BY THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE 

JUVENILE COURT — 

A DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 

Section 702 

Welfare & Institutions Code 

The Public Defender represented the accused in 226 cases brought under Section 702 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code of the State of California (contributing to the delinquency of minors). Although the cases 
covered under this section are misdemeanors, they are all tried in the Juvenile Court, a division of the Superior 
Court of the City & County of San Francisco. 

Section 261 
Penal Code 

Our office defended 31 persons accused of violation of Section 261 and related sections of the Penal Code 
(rape). This is a felony, but may be a misdemeanor, and the felony punishment is confinement in the State 
Prison for not more than fifty years. Most of the cases handled by this office are those in which the female 
prosecutrix is under the age of 18 years, in which case the punishment is either confinement in the County 
Jail for not more than a year or confinement in the State Prison for not more than fifty years. If the trial is 
by jury, the jury must set the penalty as imprisonment in the County Jail or the State Penitentiary. 

Section 288 
Penal Code 

There were 38 cases of violation of Section 288 and related sections of the Penal Code (crimes against 
children; lewd and lascivious acts) in which the services of the Public Defender were required. The gist of 
the crime consists of acts dealing with minors under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to 
or gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires of such person or of such child. It is a felony punishable by 
confinement in the State Prison for a period of from one year to life. Section 288.1 of the Penal Code provides 
that convicted persons, before being eligible for probation or parole, shall be examined by a reputable psychi- 
atrist for a report as to their mental condition. These proceedings are under Sections 5500 to 5516 of the Wel- 
fare and Institutions Code of the State of California. Eleven were committed to Atascadero State Hospital for 
an indeterminate period under these sections last year. 

Defendants are, when they are found to be sex psychopaths, referred to the State Hospital at Atascadero 
under the Welfare and Institutions Code sections referred to hereinabove, for a period of 90 days. During this 
period of time, all proceedings are suspended, pending examination and report as to whether or not the accused 
is a sex psychopath. If he is held to be a sex psychopath, he is committed to Atascadero for treatment for 
an indefinite period; if not, he is sentenced by the Judge of the Juvenile Court, or probation is given. 

Those who have been committed to Atascadero for treatment are subsequently returned from the hospital 
to the Juvenile Court for further hearing. 



INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to deal intelligently with defendants and render proper 
judgments, all of the facts and circumstances must be known to the deputy so that the case may be fairly 
and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investigators employed in any private law office or 
by the District Attorney's office ; namely to locate, interview and secure signed statements from witnesses, in 
addition to making field investigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain cases, it is impos- 
sible, without an investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can deter- 
mine from the data accumulated — regardless of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused — the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as mitigating circumstances. 

The services of an investigator have resulted in substantial economies which are reflected by the number of 
dismissals, reduction of jury and court trial days and pleas received. In some cases, discovered evidence has 
resulted in showing the complete innocence of certain defendants, although at first the evidence appeared 
strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. 



With careful investigation, it is possible to eliminate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a mini- 
mum long jury trials. Investigations arm the deputy in advance with a complete picture of the evidence to be 
presented, which he can then analyze to aid him in trying the case expeditiously. 

While services of an investigator have resulted in substantial savings in trial costs, at no time are the rights 
of the accused person sacrificed to his detriment. 



During this fiscal year, the investigator handled 210 cases, most of which were felonies — some represent- 
ing more than one defendant and more than one charge; made 688 interviews and served 140 subpoenas. After 
investigation the District Attorney dismissed 14 defendants; of the 26 defendants found Not Guilty 11 were 
investigated. The services of another investigator are needed that more cases might be investigated. 



BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1957-1958 

Salaries $ 98435.00 

Temporary Salaries 290.00 

Contractual Services 2,192.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 250.00 

Materials and Supplies 1,262.00 

Law Books 300.00 

Equipment 75- 00 

Fixed Charges — Rent — Dues 6,750.00 

Total $109,554.00 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST j 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1956-57 1957-58 

Municipal & Juvenile Courts — Misdemeanors 2220 2865 

Felonies 1426 1661 

Superior Court 924 1082 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 4570 5608 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court — Misdemeanors 3749 5027 

Felonies 33°9 3944 

Superior Court 4 T ^7 577 8 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 11125 14749 

ESTIMATED COST 

Per defendant (approximately) $21.08 $18.31 

Per appearance (approximately) 9.52 7.00 

Printing paid for by Edward T. Mancuso, 
Public Defender, and his Staff 



161 






ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1958 TO JUNE 30, 1959 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 
33 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads 
as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a 
defendant who is financially unable to employ counsel, or upon 
order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to any per- 
son charged with the commission of a crime." 



DOCUMENTS Dm. 



FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, as a matter of right, have counsel to represent 
him is still in the process of development. There is a growing recognition that this principle is basic to a 
sound administration of justice, and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding individual liberties. 

There can be no equality before the law in a criminal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prose- 
cuting attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his command the entire resources of the police 
for investigation, is matched against a poor and often friendless defendant, confined in jail, unable to under- 
stand even the simplest legal implications of the charges against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is powerless to marshal any facts to controvert them. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 1921, paving the way for the establishment of the 
Public Defender system in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it was not until 
February, 1955, that this office was able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony 
cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, which includes those from the Peninsula and the 
Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial; that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found guilty; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, 
generally, to see that each defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, under 
our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at the preliminary hearings, except in certain cases, 
such as where the defendant is arrested under Section 476A of the Penal Code (issuing checks without 
sufficient funds). We thus have the opportunity of investigating the facts in each case and of examining the 
testimony of the witnesses, and studying the transcript after the defendant has been held to answer to the 
Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty — it is only to see that each defendant is 
granted a fair and impartial trial. We endeavor to expedite trials and oppose unnecessary delays. This saves 
the county considerable money, and prevents clogging of court calendars. To permit a case to drag through 
the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the accused, especially when the defendants we represent are 
unable to post bail and are in custody pending the disposition of their cases. Since almost all of our clients 
are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten the time between the arrest of the accused and the disposition 
of his case. 



The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows : 

1957-58 1958-59 

30 days or less 25% 43% 

31 to 60 days 42% 35% 

61 to 90 days 20% 14% 

Over 90 days 13% 8% 






These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sentenced 
and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the time after trial 
and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. This period of 
time is 3 weeks. Most of the cases in the 61 to 90 day period are disposed of within the first 70 days. 



Those cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant — some 
represented by private counsel ; cases where there was more than one trial ; cases involving capital crimes and 
cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

In almost every one of the above cases the trial thereof started within the statutory period of 60 days from 
the date of arraignment. 

We strive to give the indigent the best quality of legal service. Each case is given the same care and 
attention as that provided by the best legal talent in this area, irrespective of race, creed or ability to pay. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ private counsel are 
required of all defendants in felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is questioned as to family responsibility 
and other possible assets. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights 
by filing certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 
4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

INVESTIGATOR 

The function of the investigator is to relieve the deputy Public Defenders of the time-consuming task of 
locating witnesses and making field checkups in securing evidence and accurate information on the cases 
being handled. Experience proves that this work can be done more efficiendy and economically by an experi- 
enced investigator than by the attorney who is not trained for investigation work. This time saved, moreover, 
permits the attorney to handle more trial work and to try cases more expeditiously by reason of the quality of 
the investigations. The resulting justice and economies far exceed the cost of the investigator. 

APPEALS 

It is the duty of the Public Defender, in any case wherever a conviction is had, where, in his opinion, any 
appeal to a higher Court will or might reasonably be expected to result in a reversal or modification of the 
judgment of conviction, that such appeal be taken and followed through with all the resources at their com- 
mand. 

Appeals are aiways taken when the Public Defender feels that error has been committed which would 
entitle his client to a new trial or where it is felt that such client has been deprived of his constitutional or 
statutory rights during the course of a criminal proceeding. 

J PERSONNEL 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Public Defender 

Chief Assistant Public Defender 

3 senior attorneys handling felony cases in the Superior Court. 

3 junior attorneys handling misdemeanor cases and preliminary hearings of felony cases in the Munic- 
ipal Court 

1 Investigator 

1 Confidential Secretary — Legal 

1 general Clerk-Stenographer 

1 Typist I 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 

Our offices are located at the 700 Montgomery Building, 580 Washington Street, Third Floor, San Fran- 
cisco 11, California; telephone EXbrook 2-1535. 

# # # * * 

MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Since February of 1955, our office has represented indigents in misdemeanor cases. 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 



Uvcl than at the felony level. This is due to the fact that before a trial and conviction in a felony case there 
must have been a preliminary screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a Committing Magistrate. 

It is generally conceded that a person charged with a misdemeanor who is unable to employ counsel has 
the same right to a fair trial and an adequate presentation of his defense as a person charged with a more 
serious ofTense. Any other procedure would prevent effective administration of justice, as well as a failure to 
provide equal justice for all. 

No one suggests that representation by attorneys is a prerequisite to justice in such minor offenses as 
drunkenness or traffic violations. For the most part, these cases are disposed of with relative informality within 
the simple framework of procedure by elected magistrates who are chosen by the people. There are, however, 
an increasing number of so-called minor offenses or misdemeanors which present more complex issues and 
carry severe penalties ; some even more serious sentences than some felony cases in the Superior Court. Serious 
and unanticipated consequences may follow when an uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to 
save time or trouble or to win an expected suspension of sentence. There is no way to measure these circum- 
stances. It is essentially a local problem for each community. In larger cities, the need is clearly demonstrated, 
although there are no adequate figures by which to measure the volume of cases. 

We do not represent defendants in all misdemeanor cases, such as all vagrants and common drunks. We 
do, however, handle some of these cases when appointed by the Trial Judge, of persons charged with drunk- 
enness or vagrancy or those defendants who may be ill or mentally incompetent or in need of immediate 
legal assistance. We have been able to dispose of such cases effectively by training our deputies to ascertain 
quickly the legal issues in such situations and to be able to recommend to the court a legal disposition or a 
referral to the proper agency. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and carry severe penalties, our experience has 
convinced us that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a deputy Public Defender greatly decreases 
the possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many cases. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Number of defendants represented 2220 2865 3025 

Charges filed against defendants 3412 4683 4591 

Number of appearances made by deputies 3749 5027 5187 

Of the defendants, 364 were women, or a little over 12%. 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Defendants plead guilty 342 469 739 

Defendants found guilty 767 932 819 

Defendants dismissed or discharged 629 777 633* 

Defendants found not guilty 220 425 373 

Taken over by Private Counsel 106 135 152 

Motions to Revoke Probation — New 16 13 39 

Certified to Juvenile Court — Minors 8 16 16 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 4 3 5 

Special Appearances 29 21 51 

Motions to Expunge Records — Granted 1 

Defendants Committed — Mentally 111 5 15 

Warrants Issued 10 10 15 



Made Bail — Public Defender Withdrew 3 45 46 

Cases still pending 3 1 12 

Hospitalized 20 7 14 

Bail Forfeited 9 1 2 

Certified to S. C. as Sex Psychopath under Provision of 

Sec. 5501 W&I Code 3 5 5 

Jury Demands 51 63 64! 

*Note 1 : Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and 
therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 

fNote 2: It is interesting to note the marked reduction of actual jury trials in criminal cases in the Munici 
pal Court since the Public Defender's staff was increased in February of 1955, and representation given to 
indigents in misdemeanor cases, even though the misdemeanor case load has considerably increased. 

JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thorough dis- 
cussion of the case with the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent said client, there is almost always 
a request by the client who had previously demanded a jury trial that the demand for the jury trial be waived, 
and the case referred back to the original Judge for final disposition. 

Over the period of the last three years, we have had only 8 actual jury trials out of 178 demands. In other 
words, 170 waived their demand for a jury trial because of the faith and confidence they had in our Deputies' 
abilities to see that they were properly represented in a court trial. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
EITHER PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Committed to County Jail 382 369 368 

Fined 96 146 124 

Fined with Jail Time 5 25 21 

Sentenced to Time Served 21 21 39 

Suspended Sentence 279 229 328 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 17 8 14 

Probation Granted 26 86 52 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 168 211 140 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 69 82 106 

Probation with Restitution or Fine 57 107 66 

Probation with Jail Time 34 95 132 

Probation with Jail Time — Restitution or Fine 14 5 19 

Released to Catholic Societies 4 1 2 

Hospitalized 4 12 35 

Bench Warrants Issued 2 8 

Held as Sex Psychopaths . 2 4 



1 172 1401 1558 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 



THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Section 647 and 647a— Penal Code— Vagrants (12 classifications) 532 934 807 

Many of these are addicts who are booked as vagrants, as well as under 
Section 11721 of the Health & Safety Code and 240a & b Penal Code. 

Section 647.5— Penal Code 255 144 

Every lewd or dissolute person or every person who loiters in or about 
public toilets in public parks. 

$1000 Vag.— Special bookings— NOW BEING ABANDONED 212 526 96 

This is a special booking where bail is set at $1,000, which defendants are 
usually unable to raise. It is used when the police wish to check on said 
defendants or suspect their implication in a crime. 

Section 152 — S. F. Police Code — Drunkenness in public places 281 343 501 

Section 488— Penal Code— Petty theft 195 348 417 

Section 11721— Health & Safety Code 185 228 224 

Punishment of addicts (Narcotics). 

Section 242 — S. F. Police Code — Battery 113 211 257 

Section 148 — Penal Code 71 152 190 

Resisting public officers in the discharge of their duties. 

Section 1291 — Police Code 92 82 

Prohibiting loitering while carrying concealed weapon. 

Section 240a & b — Police Code 59 74 106 

a. Lewd or indecent acts or any act of prostitution, b. Offering to secure 
another for the purpose of committing an act of prostitution. 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Section 502 — Vehicle Code 91 206 160 

Driving under influence of liquor. 

Section 67 — S. F. Traffic Code 83 172 in 

Drunkenness in or about an automobile in a public street — said automobile 
being under his immediate control or right to access. 

Section 274b, 332a — Vehicle Code 46 107 91 

Driving without having license in possession — or when refused, suspended 
or revoked. 

• * * # * 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hearings 
in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings to deter- 
mine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court. In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies also conduct interviews 
with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, to 
assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to prepare for trial. 



i66i 


1675 


1779 
347 


1776 
355 


2126 


2131 


3318 
626 


3328 
630 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY 

CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND 

JUVENILE COURT 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Defendants represented Municipal 1181 1360 1372 

Juvenile 245 301 303 

Total 1426 

Charges filed against defendants Municipal 1630 

Juvenile 255 

Total 1885 

Number of appearances made by deputies Municipal 2827 

Juvenile 482 

Total 3309 3944 3958 

Of the 1675 defendants, 130 were women, or almost 8%. 

DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Defendants Held to Answer 

Municipal 517 

Juvenile 69 

Total 586 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 

Municipal 154 

Juvenile 132 

Total 286 

Taken Over By Private Counsel 

Municipal 137 

Juvenile 27 

Total 164 211 190 

Indicted by Grand Jury 89 52 59 

Certified to Superior Court 

Municipal 8 

Juvenile 

Special Appearances Made 

Municipal 15 

Juvenile 8 

Fugitives Appeared for 60 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 144 

Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 8 

Held Mentally 111— Hospitalized 5 

7 



647 

77 


646 
62 


724 


708 


174 


167 


140 


173 


3i4 


34° 


165 
46 


145 
45 



16 


21 


2 


3 


12 


35 


5 


8 


67 


69 


208 


197 


29 


12 


10 


4 



Transferred to Criminal Division— Juvenile 

Withdrew As Attorney 

Miscellaneous Disposition 



I 


8 


2 


i7 


8 


4 



Total 1374 1661 1675 



REDUCED CHARGES — 197 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dismissed. This 
prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 197 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 66 

Given probation with suspended sentence 25 

Given probation with suspended sentence and fine or restitution 16 

Given probation with restitution or fine 14 

Given probation with jail time, and fine or restitution 33 

Given probation 14 

Given suspended sentence 23 

Fined 2 

Sentenced to time served 2 

Total 197 

* * # * # 

FELONY CASES 

By reason of the fact that a deputy is now available at all times in each Municipal Court, a larger percent- 
age of the felony complaints are disposed of in said courts by dismissal or by pleas to misdemeanor charges 
(about 38% last fiscal year) after the facts are heard. This has reduced the number of defendants who other- 
wise would have been held to answer and stand trial in the Superior Court. Each time a case is disposed of 
in the Municipal Court, the calendar of the Superior Court is lessened, and a substantial saving is made to 
the City and County. This also prevents crowding of the County Jail. 

Our Municipal Court deputies, trained in criminal law, thoroughly cross-examine a prosecuting witness 
to discover the actual facts. This aids the Committing Magistrate in determining whether or not a crime was, 
in fact, committed, and, if so, whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor. We receive transcripts of the testi- 
mony, in the event the defendant is held to answer to the Superior Court, which are of material assistance in 
procuring an early disposition of the case in the Superior Court. 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 

SUPERIOR COURT 

1956-57 

Old Cases 112 

New Cases (157 with priors) 812 

Total 924 1082 983 

Of the 983 represented, 44 were women, or about 4.5%. 

8 



1957-58 


1958-59 


138 


5i 


944 


932 



724 


708 


i8 


24 


52 


59 


150 


141 


944 


932 



45 


77 


63 


9 


7 


3 


33 


48 


30 


17 


26 


21 
3 



NEW CASES 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal and Juvenile Court . . 586 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 8 

Indicted by Grand Jury 89 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 129 

Total 812 

Total number of Court appearances made by deputies in above cases 4167 5778 5520 

DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Defendants plead guilty 356 513 462 

During trials Jury 5 Court 3 8 

Defendants found guilty 125 143 102 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

By Jury 76 81 54 

By Court 49 62 48 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 

Found guilty of lesser included offenses by juries 

Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

By Jury 9 21 16 

By Court 8 5 5 

In addition to the above, there were 5 jury trial disagreements and in 
all 246 full court trial days, not including court hearings or trials — 
such as sanity hearings, sex psycho hearings, motions to revoke or 
modify probation, motions to dismiss, etc. 

Mentally ill cases — All Jury Trials 7 6 8 

Substituted by Private Counsel 71 71 79 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 48 37 29 

Hearing under Section 1368 — Penal Code — Sane 15 Insane 12 12 

Motions to revoke probation (new cases) 32 48 38 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 9 10 

Motion to expunge record 5 2 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psychopaths) 9 7 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 7 7 2 

Withdrew as counsel — Conflict of interest or financial reason 5 3 2 

Miscellaneous 8 

Appeal & Writs Filed 9 9 12 

Cases closed during year (old and new) 786 1031 91 1 

Cases still pending 138 51 72 

Total 924 1082 983 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 

CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 
PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1957-58 1958-59 

Death penalty (Affirmed) I 1 

Defendants sentenced to Prison for term prescribed by law 271 172 

Defendants sentenced to County jail 236 245 

Defendants sentenced to Corona 9 8 

Defendants sentenced to time served 2 2 

Probation granted 28 14 

Probation granted with suspended sentence ". 14 19 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed 71 62 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed with restitution or fine 16 20 

Probation granted with restitution or fine 20 15 

Committed to Youth Authority 66 66 

Referred to Juvenile Court 3 2 

Recommitted for indefinite period 13 4 

Committed to State hospitals 17 23 

Committed to Vacaville 3 3 



# # * # # 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY 

CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1956 TO 1959 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the discretion 
of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fall into the following categories: 

1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Section 459 — Penal Code — Burglary 244 339 245 

Section 211 — Penal Code— Robbery 225 242 216 

Section 487 — Penal Code — Grand Theft 124 195 149 

Section 11500 — Health & Safety Code — Possession of narcotics 179 209 197 

Section 503 — Vehicle Code — Theft of vehicle 74 139 108 

Note: In booking defendant under this section, the arresting officer usually 

also charges the defendant under Section 487 of the Penal Code. 

Section 470 — Penal Code — Forgery 71 88 66 

Section 476a — Penal Code — Issuance of checks with insufficient funds 87 82 37 

MURDER CASES 

During the year, the Public Defender represented 15 defendants charged with murder. They were disposed 
of as follows: 

3 plead guilty to 1st degree murder. 

1 found guilty of 1st degree murder, with the death penalty. 

2 plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

1 found guilty of 2nd degree murder. 

2 plead guilty to manslaughter. 

1 found guilty of manslaughter. 

3 found insane. 

2 employed private counsel. 

10 



SPECIAL CASES HANDLED BY THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE 

JUVENILE COURT — 

A DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 

Section 702 

Welfare & Institutions Code 

The Public Defender represented the accused in 250 charges brought under Section 702 of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code of the State of California (contributing to the delinquency of minors). Although the 
cases covered under this section are misdemeanors, they are all tried in the Juvenile Court, a division of the 
Superior Court of the City & County of San Francisco. 

Section 261 
Penal Code 

Our office defended persons accused of 52 violations of Section 261 and related sections of the Penal Code 
(rape). This is a felony, but may be a misdemeanor, and the felony punishment is confinement in the State 
Prison for not more than fifty years. Most of the cases handled by this office are those in which the female 
prosecutrix is under the age of 18 years, in which case the punishment is either confinement in the County 
Jail for not more than a year or confinement in the State Prison for not more than fifty years. If the trial is 
by jury, the jury must set the penalty as imprisonment in the County Jail or the State Penitentiary. 

Section 288 
Penal Code 

There were 45 violations of Section 288 and related sections of the Penal Code (crimes against children ; 
lewd and lascivious acts) in which the services of the Public Defender were required. The gist of the 
crime consists of acts dealing with minors under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to 
or gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires of such person or of such child. It is a felony punishable by 
confinement in the State Prison for a period of from one year to life. Section 288.1 of the Penal Code provides 
that convicted persons, before being eligible for probation or parole, shall be examined by a reputable psychi- 
atrist for a report as to their mental condition. These proceedings are under Sections 5500 to 5516 of the Wel- 
fare and Institutions Code of the State of California. Four were committed to Atascadero State Hospital for 
an indeterminate period under these sections last year. 

Defendants are, when they are found to be sex psychopaths, referred to the State Hospital at Atascadero 
under the Welfare and Institutions Code sections referred to hereinabove, for a period of 90 days. During this 
period of time, all proceedings are suspended, pending examination and report as to whether or not the accused 
is a sex psychopath. If he is held to be a sex psychopath, he is committed to Atascadero for treatment for 
an indefinite period ; if not, he is sentenced by the Judge of the Juvenile Court, or probation is given. 

Those who have been committed to Atascadero for treatment are subsequently returned from the hospital 
to the Juvenile Court for further hearing. 

• # * • • 

INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to deal intelligently with defendants and render proper 
judgments, all of the facts and circumstances must be known to the deputy so that the case may be fairly 
and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investigators employed in any private law office or 
by the District Attorney's office; namely to locate, interview and secure signed statements from witnesses, in 
addition to making field investigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain cases, it is impos- 
sible, without an investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can deter- 
mine from the data accumulated — regardless of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused — the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as mitigating circumstances. 

The services of an investigator have resulted in substantial economies which are reflected by the number of 
dismissals, reduction of jury and court trial days and pleas received. In some cases, discovered evidence has 
resulted in showing the complete innocence of certain defendants, although at first the evidence appeared 
strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. 

t r 



With careful investigation, it is possible to eliminate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a mini- 
mum long jury trials. Investigations arm the deputy in advance with a complete picture of the evidence to be 
presented, which he can then analyze to aid him in trying the case expeditiously. 

While services of an investigator have resulted in substantial savings in trial costs, at no time are the rights 
of the accused person sacrificed to his detriment. 



During this fiscal year, the investigator handled 160 cases, most of which were felonies — some represent- 
ing more than one defendant and more than one charge; made 740 interviews and served 159 subpoenas. After 
investigation the District Attorney dismissed n defendants; of the 21 defendants found Not Guilty 8 were 
investigated. After investigation of the cases listed above, 33 of the defendants plead guilty, thereby eliminat- 
ing the necessity of a trial. Four trials resulted in disagreements and 3 were found guilty of lesser included 
offenses. The services of another investigator are needed that more cases might be investigated. 



BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1958-1959 

Salaries $114480.00 

Temporary Salaries 290.00 

Contractual Services 2,190.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 250.00 

Materials and Supplies 990.00 

Law Books 475- 00 

Equipment 575-°o 

Fixed Charges — Rent — Dues 6,750.00 

Total $126,075.00 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 

Municipal & Juvenile Courts — Misdemeanors 2220 2865 3025 

Felonies 1426 1661 1675 

Superior Court 924 1082 983 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 4570 5608 5683 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court — Misdemeanors 3749 5027 5187 

Felonies 3309 3944 3958 

Superior Court 4167 5778 5520 



TOTAL APPEARANCES 11125 14749 14665 

ESTIMATED COST 

Per defendant (approximately) $21.08 $18.31 $21.00 

Per appearance (approximately) 9.52 7.00 8.13 

Printing paid for by Edward T. Mancuso, 
Public Defender, and his Staff 



i«i 



12 



ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1959 TO JUNE 30, 1960 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 
33 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads 
as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a 
defendant who is financially unable to employ counsel, or upon 
order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to any per- 
son charged with the commission of a crime." 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 20 ■ 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, as a matter of right, have counsel to represent 
him is still in die process of development. There is a growing recognition that this principle is basic to a 
sound administration of justice, and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding individual liberties. 

There can be no equality before the law in a criminal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prose- 
cuting attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his command the entire resources of the police 
for investigation, is matched against a poor and often friendless defendant, confined in jail, unable to under- 
stand even the simplest legal implications of the charges against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is powerless to marshal any facts to controvert them. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 1921, paving the way for the establishment of the 
Public Defender system in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it was not until 
February, 1955, that tliis office was able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony 
cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, which includes those from the Peninsula and the 
Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES | 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial; that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found guilty; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, 
generally, to see that each defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, under 
our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at the preliminary hearings. We thus have the oppor- 
tunity of investigating the facts in each case and of examining the testimony of the witnesses, and studying the 
transcript after the defendant has been held to answer to the Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty. We endeavor to expedite trials and oppose 
unnecessary delays. This saves the county considerable money, and prevents clogging of court calendars. To 
permit a case to drag through the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the accused, especially when 
the defendants we represent are unable to post bail and are in custody pending the disposition of their cases. 
Since almost all of our clients are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten the time between the arrest of 
the accused and the disposition of his case. 

The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

1957-58 i95 8 -59 I959- 60 

30 days or less 25% 43% 45% 

31 to 60 days 42% 35% 33% 

61 to 90 days 20% 14% 15% 

Over 90 days 13% 8% 7% 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sentenced 
and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the time after trial 
and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. This period of 
time is 3 weeks. 



Those cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant — some 
represented by private counsel; cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving capital crimes and 
cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ private counsel are 
required of all defendants in felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is questioned as to family responsibility 
and other possible assets. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights 
by filing certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 
4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

EVTERNESHIP PROGRAM 

In May, i960, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco approved the following 
ordinance for the establishment of an Interneship Program in the office of the Public Defender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attorneys. The public defender is hereby authorized 
to institute a system of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of the City and County 
of San Francisco to serve in the office of the public defender and thereby acquire experience in the 
field of criminal law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and under the supervision of the pub- 
lic defender and permanent members of the office of the public defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this system of internship shall be designated and shall 
serve at the pleasure of the public defender. Each attorney so designated must be qualified to practice 
in all the courts of the state. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of any kind or nature paid to said law students 
or attorneys, nor shall any such person be eligible to be a member of the retirement system of the 
City and County of San Francisco or have any rights thereunder by reason of such service. 
To date, the following persons served in the Public Defender's office. Their services eased the work load 
in the office and we are grateful for their participation in this program: 

Isaac Fluss — Third Year Law Student 

Alsam Small — Just admitted to the Bar 

Allen Anderson — Admitted to the Bar for 1 1 / 2 years 

Douglas Corbin — Admitted to the Bar for 9 years 
The office has made it a policy that only those attorneys who had two years of actual practice and experi- 
ence would actually take over the defense of any indigent. 

APPEALS 

It is the duty of the Public Defender, in any case wherever a conviction is had, where, in his opinion, any 
appeal to a higher Court will or might reasonably be expected to result in a reversal or modification of the 
judgment of conviction, that such appeal be taken and followed through with all the resources at their com- 
mand. 

Appeals are always taken when the Public Defender feels that error has been committed which would 
entitle his client to a new trial or where it is felt that such client has been deprived of his constitutional or 
statutory rights during the course of a criminal proceeding. 

PERSONNEL 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 
Public Defender 
Chief Assistant Public Defender 

2 principal attorneys criminal, handling felony cases in the Superior Court. 
4 senior attorneys criminal, handling misdemeanor cases and preliminary hearings of felony cases in 

the Municipal Court; also handle felony cases in the Superior Court. 
1 trial attorney criminal, handling misdemeanor cases and preliminary hearings of felony cases in 

the Municipal Court. 
1 Investigator 

1 Confidential Secretary — Legal 
1 General Clerk-Stenographer 
1 Typist I 



The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 
Our offices arc located at the 700 Montgomery Building, 580 Washington Street, Third Floor, San Fran- 
cisco, 11, California; telephone EXbrook 2-1535. 

MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 
level than at the felony level. This is due to the fact that before a trial and conviction in a felony case there 
must have been a preliminary screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a Committing Magistrate. 

It is generally conceded that a person charged with a misdemeanor who is unable to employ counsel has 
the same right to a fair trial and an adequate presentation of his defense as a person charged with a more 
serious offense. Any other procedure would prevent effective administration of justice, as well as a failure to 
provide equal justice for all. 

No one suggests that representation by attorneys is a prerequisite to justice in such minor offenses as 
drunkenness or traffic violations. There are, however, an increasing number of so-called minor offenses or 
misdemeanors which present more complex issues and carry severe penalties; some even more serious sentences 
than some felony cases in the Superior Court. Serious and unanticipated consequences may follow when an 
uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to save time or trouble or to win an expected suspension of 
sentence. There is no way to measure these circumstances. It is essentially a local problem for each community. 
In larger cities, the need is clearly demonstrated, although there are no adequate figures by which to measure 
the volume of cases. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and carry severe penalties, our experience has 
convinced us that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public Defender greatly decreases 
the possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many cases. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Number of defendants represented 2865 3025 2768 

Charges filed against defendants 4683 4591 4067 

Number of appearances made by deputies 5027 5187 4856 

Of the defendants, 399 were women, or a little over 14%. 



DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Defendants plead guilty 469 739 702 

Defendants found guilty 932 819 893 

Defendants dismissed or discharged 777 633 509* 

Defendants found not guilty 425 373 309 

Taken over by Private Counsel 135 152 168 

Motions to Revoke Probation— New 13 39 34 

Certified to Juvenile Court — Minors 16 16 18 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 3 5 5 

Special Appearances 21 51 38 

Motions to Expunge Records — Granted 1 o 1 

Defendants Committed— Mentally 111 5 15 2I 

Warrants Issued 10 15 3° 

Enroute Booking (New) " 

4 




Made Bail— Public Defender Withdrew 45 46 18 

Cases still pending 1 12 4 

Hospitalized 7 14 39 

Miscellaneous 1 2 6 

Certified to S. C. as Sex Psychopath under Provision of 

Sec. 5501 W&I Code 5 5 6 

Jury Demands 63 64 92 

*Note 1 : Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and 
therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 



JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thorough dis- 
cussion of the case with the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent said client, there is almost always 
a request by the client who had previously demanded a jury trial that the demand for the jury trial be waived, 
and the case referred back to the original Judge for final disposition. 

Last year we had only 8 actual jury trials out of 92 demands. In other words, 84 waived their demand for 
a jury trial because of the faith and confidence they had in our Deputies' abilities to see that they were prop- 
erly represented in a court trial. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
EITHER PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Committed to County Jail 369 368 354 

Fined 146 124 37 

Fined with Jail Time 25 21 55 

Sentenced to Time Served 21 39 16 

Suspended Sentence 229 328 294 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 8 14 26 

Probation Granted 86 52 331 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 211 140 97 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 189 172 172 

Probation with Jail Time 95 132 151 

Probation with Jail Time — Restitution or Fine 5 19 10 

Auto License Suspended o o 23 

Hospitalized 12 35 40 

Bench Warrants Issued 2 8 12 

Held as Sex Psychopaths 2 4 2 

140© 1456 1620 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 



THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Section 647 and 647a— Penal Code— Vagrants (12 classifications) 934 807 481 

Section 647.5— Penal Code 255 I44 40 

Every lewd or dissolute person or every person who loiters in or about 

public toilets in public parks. 

Siooo Vag.— Special bookings— NOW ABANDONED 526 96 o 

Under the policy of the new Chief of Police, Thomas J. Cahill, there have 
been considerable less arrests under the vagrancy sections and none under 
the $1,000 Vag. or special booking section. 

Section 152 — S. F. Police Code — Drunkenness in public places 343 501 615 

Section 488— Penal Code— Petty theft 348 417 442 

Section 11721— Health & Safety Code 228 224 263 

Punishment of addicts (Narcotics). 

147 of the defendants we represented submitted to the Nalline Test, 83 of 
which were dismissed; 33 were found guilty, 12 were found not guilty; 4 
plead guilty ; bench warrants were issued in 2 cases ; Public Defender with- 
drew in 1 case; 12 were taken over by Private Counsel. 

Section 242— S. F. Police Code — Battery 211 257 278 

Section 148 — Penal Code 152 190 214 

Resisting public officers in the discharge of their duties. 

Section 240a & h> — Police Code 74 106 113 

a. Lewd or indecent acts or any act of prostitution, b. Offering to secure 
another for the purpose of committing an act of prostitution. 

Section 4230 — Business & Prof. Code — Possession of Hypnotic Drugs, etc 113 

* * * # * 

MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Section 23102 — Vehicle Code 206 160 75 

Driving under influence of liquor. 

Section 67 — S. F. Traffic Code 172 in 44 

Drunkenness in or about an automobile in a public street — said automobile 
being under his immediate control or right to access. 

# # * • • 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hearings 
in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings to deter- 
mine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies also conduct interviews 
with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, to 
assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to prepare for trial. 

***** 

The deputies made 1,235 visits to the County Jails last year to discuss cases with their clients. 

There were also in excess of 500 people who called at the office of the Public Defender last year for the 
purpose of seeking advice and information concerning criminal and civil matters, which problems were dis- 
cussed with deputies when in the office; otherwise the office personnel, and arrangements made for an 

appointment. 



1958-59 


1959-60 


1372 
303 


1444 
279 


1675 


1723 


1776 
355 


1780 
322 


2131 


2102 


3328 
630 


3214 
59i 


3958 


3805 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY 

CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND 

JUVENILE COURT 

1957-58 

Defendants represented Municipal 1360 

Juvenile 301 

Total 1661 

Charges filed against defendants Municipal 1779 

Juvenile 347 

Total 2126 

Number of appearances made by deputies Municipal 3318 

Juvenile 626 

Total 3944 

Of the 1723 defendants, 129 were women, or less than 8%. 

DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Defendants Held to Answer 

Municipal 

Juvenile 

Total 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 

Municipal 

Juvenile 

Total 314 340 301 

Taken Over By Private Counsel 

Municipal 165 145 159 

Juvenile 46 45 53 



647 

77 


646 
62 


636 
67 


724 


708 


703 


i74 
140 


167 
i73 


165 
136 



Total 



211 190 212 



Indicted by Grand Jury 52 59 157 

Certified to Superior Court 

Municipal 16 

Juvenile 2 

Special Appearances Made 

Municipal 12 

Juvenile 5 

Fugitives Appeared for 67 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 208 

Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 29 

Held Mentally 111 — Hospitalized 10 

7 



21 


10 


3 


1 


35 
8 

69 


14 

7 

66 


197 


i95 


12 


12 


4 


12 



Transferred to Criminal Division — Juvenile 

Withdrew As Attorney 

Miscellaneous Disposition — Bench Warrants — Pending 

Total 1661 

***** 



I 


8 


16 


2 


17 


10 


8 


4 


7 



1675 



1723 



REDUCED CHARGES — 195 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser included oflense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dismissed. This 
prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 195 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 69 

Given probation (Some with fine or restitution) 41 

Given probation with suspended sentence. (Usually includes fine or restitution) 38 

Given probation with jail time (Some include fine or restitution) 16 

Given suspended sentence 13 

Fine or jail 3 

Sentenced to time served 1 



195 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 

SUPERIOR COURT 

1957-58 1958-59 

Old Cases 138 51 

New Cases (168 with priors) 944 932 

Total 1082 983 

Of the 1074 represented, 71 were women, or about 6.6%. 



1959-60 

72 
1002 



1074 



NEW CASES 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-6° 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal and Juvenile Court — 724 708 696 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 18 24 11 

Indicted by Grand Jury 5 2 59 x 57 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 15° T 4 T T 3^ 

Total 944 93 2 I002 

Total number of Court appearances made by deputies in above cases 5778 5520 5197 

8 






City and County of San Francisco 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 



OFFICE OF THE 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 

700 MONTGOMERY STREET 

San Francisco 11. California 

EXbrook 2-1535 



ABRAHAM M. DRESOW 

CHIEF ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER 



ANNUAL REPORT 
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 
JULY 1, 1959 TO JUNE 30, I960 



The attached report shows a breakdown of the 
cases handled by the Public Defenders office in the last 
fiscal year; together with a brief description of the 
manner in which the Public Defender system operates in 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

We supply a much needed service in providing 
defense for indigent persons who are accused of crime. 
This has been particularly true since 1955 » as we now 
reoresent persons accused of misdemeanors, as well as 
felonies. 

We hope this report will be of interest to 
you. If you have any questions concerning our office, 
feel free to call us at any time. 



ETM:pm 




EDWARD T. JIANCUSO 
Public Def/ender 



DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 



Defendants plead guilty (25 to misdemeanors) 

During trials Jury 6 Court 4 

Defendants found guilty (Many of lesser included offenses) 



1957-58 
513 


1958-59 

462 
8 


1959-60 
470 
10 


143 


102 


100 



1958-59 


1959-60 


54 


47 


48 


53 



1958-59 


1959-60 


16 


24 


5 


6 



77 


63 


47 


7 


3 


15 


48 


30 


37 


26 


21 


30 




3 


1 



1957-58 

By Jury 81 

By Court 62 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 

Found guilty of lesser included offenses by juries . . 

Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity . 

1957-58 

By Jury 21 

By Court 5 

In addition to the above, there were 5 jury trial disagreements and in 
all 301 full court trial days, not including court hearings or trials — 
such as sanity hearings, sex psycho hearings, motions to revoke or 
modify probation, motions to dismiss, etc. 



Mentally ill cases — All Jury Trials 6 

Substituted by Private Counsel 71 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 37 

Hearing under Section 1368 — Penal Code — Sane 42 Insane 25 

Motions to revoke probation (new cases) 48 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 9 

Motion to expunge record 5 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psychopaths) 9 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency — 7 

Withdrew as counsel — Conflict of interest or financial reason 3 

Miscellaneous and Bench Warrants 

Appeal & Writs Filed 9 

Cases closed during year (old and new) 1031 

Cases still pending 51 

Total 1082 983 



8 


8 


79 


69 


29 


42 


12 


25 


38 


42 


10 


7 


2 


2 


7 


12 


2 


3 


2 


4 


8 


6 


12 


6 


911 


936 


72 


66 



1002 



Motions to Dismiss under Section 995 Penal Code — 89 Granted 19 Denied 70 
Motion for New Trials— 19 Granted 4 Denied 15 

Motion to Reduce Bail— 26 Granted 20 Denied 6 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 

CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 

PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Death penalty (Affirmed) 1 1 1 

Defendants sentenced to Prison for term prescribed by law 280 180 198 

Defendants sentenced to County Jail 236 245 304 

Defendants sentenced to time served 2 2 1 

Probation granted (some with fine or restitution) 48 29 35 

Probation granted with suspended sentence 14 19 39 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed 71 62 75 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed with 

restitution or fine 16 20 19 

Committed to Youth Authority 66 66 59 

Referred to Juvenile Court 3 2 1 

Recommitted for indefinite period 13 4 1 

Committed to State hospitals 20 16 25 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY 

CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1957 TO 1960 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the discretion 
of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fall into the following categories: 

1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Section 459— Penal Code— Burglary 339 245 276 

Section 211— Penal Code— Robbery 242 216 209 

Section 487— Penal Code— Grand Theft 195 149 148 

Section 470— Penal Code— Forgery 88 66 91 

Section 476a— Penal Code — Issuance of checks with insufficient funds 82 37 56 

Section 11 500— Health & Safety Code— Possession of narcotics 209 197 60 

Section 10851— Vehicle Code— Theft of vehicle 139 108 96 

Note: In booking defendant under this section, the arresting officer usually 

also charges the defendant under Section 487 of the Penal Code. 

# # # # # 



MURDER CASES 

During the year, the Public Defender represented 19 defendants charged with murder. They were disposed 
of as follows: 

1 found guilty of 1st degree murder, with the death penalty. 

1 plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

1 found guilty of 2nd degree murder. 

6 plead guilty to manslaughter. 

3 found guilty of manslaughter. 

6 employed private counsel. 

1 pending. 



10 



SPECIAL CASES HANDLED BY THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE 

JUVENILE COURT — 

A DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 

Section 702 

Welfare & Institutions Code 

The Public Defender represented the accused in 208 charges brought under Section 702 of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code of the State of California (contributing to the delinquency of minors). Although the 
cases covered under this section are misdemeanors, they are all tried in the Juvenile Court, a division of the 
Superior Court of the City & County of San Francisco. 

Section 261 
Penal Code 

Our office defended persons accused of 69 violations of Section 261 and related sections of the Penal Code 
(rape). This is a felony, but may be a misdemeanor, and the felony punishment is confinement in the State 
Prison for not more than fifty years. Most of the cases handled by this office are those in which the female 
prosecutrix is under the age of 18 years, in which case the punishment is either confinement in the County 
Jail for not more than a year or confinement in the State Prison for not more than fifty years. If the trial is 
by jury, the jury must set the penalty as imprisonment in the County Jail or the State Penitentiary. 

Section 288 
Penal Code 

There were 79 violations of Section 288 and related sections of the Penal Code (crimes against children; 
lewd and lascivious acts) in which the services of the Public Defender were required. The gist of the 
crime consists of acts dealing with minors under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to 
or gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires of such person or of such child. It is a felony punishable by 
confinement in the State Prison for a period of from one year to life. Section 288.1 of the Penal Code provides 
that convicted persons, before being eligible for probation or parole, shall be examined by a reputable psychi- 
atrist for a report as to their mental condition. These proceedings are under Sections 5500 to 5516 of the Wel- 
fare and Institutions Code of the State of California. Four were committed to Atascadero State Hospital for 
an indeterminate period under these sections last year. 

Defendants are, when they are found to be sex psychopaths, referred to the State Hospital at Atascadero 
under the Welfare and Institutions Code sections referred to hereinabove, for a period of 90 days. During this 
period of time, all proceedings are suspended, pending examination and report as to whether or not the accused 
is a sex psychopath. If he is held to be a sex psychopath, he is committed to Atascadero for treatment for 
an indefinite period; if not, he is sentenced by the Judge of the Juvenile Court, or probation is given. 

Those who have been committed to Atascadero for treatment are subsequently returned from the hospital 

to the Juvenile Court for further hearing. 

Last year there were 30 sex psychopath hearings and 16 hearings under Section 5500 of the Welfare & 

Institution Code. 

# * # • • 

INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to deal intelligendy with defendants and render proper 
judgments, all of the facts and circumstances must be known to the deputy so that the case may be fairly 
and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investigators employed in any private law office or 
by the District Attorney's office ; namely to locate, interview and secure signed statements from witnesses, in 
addition to making field investigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain cases, it is impos- 
sible, without an investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can deter- 
mine from the data accumulated — regardless of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused — the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In some cases, discovered evidence has resulted in showing the complete innocence of certain defendants, 
although at first the evidence appeared strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. With careful investiga- 
tion, it is possible to eliminate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a minimum long jury trials. Inves- 

11 



fixations arm the deputy in advance with a complete picture of the evidence to be presented, which he can then 
analyze to aid him in trying the case expeditiously. 

During the fiscal year, the investigator handled 160 cases; made 746 interviews and served 129 subpoenas. 
After investigation the District Attorney dismissed n defendants; 15 defendants were found not guilty; 28 of 
the defendants plead guilty, thereby eliminating the necessity of a trial. Two trials resulted in disagreements 
and 4 plead guilty or were found guilty of lesser included offenses. 



BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1959-1960 

Salaries $120,060.00 

Temporary Salaries 250.00 

Contractual Services 2,165.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 250.00 

Materials and Supplies 948.00 

Law Books 450.00 

Equipment 

Fixed Charges — Rent — Dues 6,750.00 

Total $130,873.00 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 

Municipal & Juvenile Courts — Misdemeanors 2865 3025 2768 

Felonies 1661 1675 1723 

Superior Court 1082 983 1002 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 5608 5683 5493 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court— Misdemeanors 5027 5187 4856 

Felonies 3944 3958 3805 

Superior Court 577 8 55 20 5 X 97 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 14749 14665 13858 

ESTIMATED COST 

Per defendant (approximately) $18.31 $21.00 $23.82 

Per appearance (approximately) 7.00 8.13 9.45 

Printing paid for by Edward T. Mancuso, 
Public Defender, and his Staff 



12 



DOCUMENTS 
SEP 25 1961 



SAN FRANCISCO 
EUBLIC LIBRARY. 



ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1960 TO JUNE 30, 1961 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 
33 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads 
as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a 
defendant who is financially unable to employ counsel, or upon 
order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to any per- 
son charged with the commission of a crime." 



FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, as a matter of right, have counsel to represent 
him is still in the process of development. There is a growing recognition that this principle is basic to a 
sound administration of justice, and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding individual liberties. 

There can be no equality before the law in a criminal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prose- 
cut ing attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his command the entire resources of the police 
for investigation, is matched against a poor and often friendless defendant, confined in jail, unable to under- 
stand even the simplest legal implications of the charges against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is powerless to marshal any facts to controvert them. 



JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 1921, paving the way for the establishment of the 
Public Defender system in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it was not until 
February, 1955, that this office was able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony 
cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, which includes those from the Peninsula and the 
Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 



DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial; that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found guilty; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, 
generally, to see that each defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, under 
our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at the preliminary hearings. We thus have the oppor- 
tunity of investigating the facts in each case and of examining the testimony of the witnesses, and studying the 
transcript after the defendant has been held to answer to the Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty. We endeavor to expedite trials and oppose 
unnecessary delays. To permit a case to drag through the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the 
accused, especially when the defendants we represent are unable to post bail and are in custody pending 
the disposition of their cases. Since almost all of our clients are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten 
the time between the arrest of the accused and the disposition of his case. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ private counsel are 
required of all defendants in felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is questioned as to family responsibility 
and other possible assets. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights 
by filing certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 
4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

Section 601 et sec W & 1 Code 

In the past the Public Defender has been called upon by the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court to 
represent juveniles before the Court. Representation by the Public Defender has been primarily for the pur- 
pose of facilitating the action of the Court and secondarily for the purpose of presenting in an orderly 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
Office of The 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 
Hall of Justice 8^0 Bryant Street 

San Francisco, 3, Calif. 



ANNUAL REPORT 
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 
■JULY 1, I960 TO JUNE 30, 1961 



The attached renort shows a breakdown of the cases 
handled by the Public Defenders office in the last fiscal year; 
together with a brief description of the manner in which the 
Public Defender system operates in the City and County of San 
Francisco. 

Last year the Public Defender's office represented 
7,199 peoole as against S',Ij93 the preceding year, or an increase 
of approximately 31%, which was primarily caused by representing 
defendants in the misdemeanor field. In 1969-61 the deputies 
made 17,599 appearances in court as against 13,658 appearances 
in 1959-60 or an increase of 27%. 

Our records indicate that in felony cases we are being- 
called upon more to represent defendants with nrior convictions. 
We are also noticing that in the misdemeanor field, a greater 
percentage of people we represent have previously been involved 
with the law. 

After 7 years as Public Defender of the City and County 
of San Francisco, in studying the crime picture in other local- 
ities as well as in our own Bay Area, it is my firm belief that 
society should pay more attention to adopting an intelligent 
program of rehabilitation of people who are convicted of crime 
and incarcerated. These persons are subsequently released from 
jail or prison, without any immediate prospects of obtaining 
a lob or funds with which to subsist until they are able to 
obtain employment. 

We hope this report will be of interest to you. If 
you have any questions concerning our office, feel free to 
call us at any time. 



Sincerely yours.,' 



f 



/ / / 



V, 



u 



ETM:pm EDWARD T. MANCUSO 

Public Defender 



fashion the opposing view in a complex factual situation. Prior to the action of the 1961 legislature the right 
of a minor to representation by counsel was not a matter of right and it was generally conceded that in such 
proceedings representation by counsel was not a matter of procedural due process. However, the 1961 session 
of the state legislature amended the Juvenile Court law to provide for representation by counsel in Juvenile 
Court cases. The new law will become effective the 15th of September, 1961. 

Our office in conjunction with the Juvenile Court and with the Court's approval has participated in 
hearings involving juvenile offenders as a pilot study preparatory to the effective operation of the new system. 

The law provides : "When it appears to the Court that the minor or his parent or guardian desires coun- 
sel but is indigent and cannot for that reason employ counsel, the Court may appoint counsel. In such a case 
the Court must appoint counsel for the minor if he is charged with misconduct which would constitute a 
felony, if committed by an adult. In any case in which it appears to the Court that there is such a conflict of 
interest between a parent or guardian and child that one attorney could not properly represent both, the 
Court may appoint counsel in addition to counsel already employed by a parent or guardian or appointed by 
the Court to represent the minor or a parent or guardian." 

We contemplate an appreciable increase in the number of juvenile cases handled by the office. 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

In May, i960, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco approved the following 
ordinance for the establishment of an Internship Program in the office of the Public Defender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attorneys. The public defender is hereby authorized 
to institute a system of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of the City and County 
of San Francisco to serve in the office of the public defender and thereby acquire experience in the 
field of criminal law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and under the supervision of the pub- 
lic defender and permanent members of the office of the public defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this system of internship shall be designated and shall 
serve at the pleasure of the public defender. Each attorney so designated must be qualified to practice 
in all the courts of the state. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of any kind or nature paid to said law students 
or attorneys, nor shall any such person be eligible to be a member of the retirement system of the 
City and County of San Francisco or have any rights thereunder by reason of such service. 

To date, many persons have served in the Public Defender's office. Their services eased the work load in 
the office and we are grateful for their participation in this program. 

The office has made it a policy that only those attorneys who had two years of actual practice and experi- 
ence would actually take over the defense of any indigent. 

PERSONNEL 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Public Defender 

Chief Assistant Public Defender 

2 principal attorneys criminal 

4 senior attorneys criminal 

1 trial attorney criminal 

1 Investigator 

1 Confidential Secretary — with legal training 

1 General Clerk-Stenographer 

1 Typist I 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 

Our offices are located at the new Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco 3, California; tele- 
phone KLondike 3-1671. 



MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience lus shown that there is a greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 
level than in situations involving the commission of a felony. This is due, in part, to the fact that before a 
trial and conviction or acquittal in a felony case there must have been a preliminary screening of the evi- 
dence, before a Grand Jury or a Committing magistrate. 

Our concept of justice requires that a person charged with the commission of a misdemeanor, who is 
unable to employ counsel, has the same right to expect and receive a fair trial which includes adequate rep- 
resentation and presentation of his defense, as does the person who is sufficiently affluent to employ counsel 
of his own choosing or who has counsel provided for him because he is charged with a more serious offense. 
Any other position would most certainly be at odds with our traditional ideas of justice and would most 
assuredly he a denial of due process. 

We are finding that an increasing number of so called minor offenses or misdemeanors are continually 
presenting more complex issues and carrying more severe penalties; some penalties, in their practical implica- 
tions, are considerably more severe than penalties in some felony cases. Serious, surprising and unanticipated 
results often follow when an uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to a minor offense either in 
order to save time or to win an expected suspension of sentence. There is no criteria that can be utilized to 
measure these circumstances. In the main the problem is one that is essentially parochial in nature and must be 
resolved on the basis of each community's need. In larger communities there is an ever pressing need for rep- 
resentation in all criminal proceedings, although there are no available statistics by which to measure the 
volume of cases. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and carry severe penalties, our experience has 
convinced us that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public Defender greatly decreases 
the possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many cases. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Number of defendants represented 3025 2768 4166 

Charges filed against defendants 4591 4067 6490 

Number of appearances made by deputies 5187 4856 7168 

Of the defendants, 664 were women, or approximately 16%. 



DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 






1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Defendants plead guilty 739 

Defendants found guilty 819 

Defendants dismissed or discharged* 722 

Defendants found not guilty 373 

Taken over by Private Counsel 152 

Motions to Revoke Probation— New 39 

Certified to Juvenile Court — Minors 16 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 5 

Special Appearances 51 

Motions to Expunge Records — Granted o 

Defendants Committed — Mentally III 35 

Warrants Issued • 15 



702 


749 


893 


1653 


509 


816 


309 


322 


168 


366 


34 


5i 


18 


21 


5 


2 


38 


49 


1 


1 


3i 


37 


22 


21 






Made Bail— Public Defender Withdrew 46 28 62 

Cases still pending 12 4 16 

Miscellaneous 20 6 o 

*Note 1 : Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and 
therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 



MISDEMEANOR JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thorough dis- 
cussion of the case with the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent said client, there is almost always 
a request by the client who had previously demanded a jury trial that the demand for the jury trial be waived, 
and the case referred back to the original Judge for final disposition. 

Last year we had only 7 actual jury trials out of 163 demands. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES EV WHICH DEFENDANTS 
EITHER PLEAD GIJIETY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Committed to County Jail 368 354 505 

Fined 124 37 81 

Fined with Jail Time 21 55 10 

Sentenced to Time Served 39 16 45 

Suspended Sentence 328 294 456 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 20 26 23 

Probation Granted 152 331 219 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 180 97 417 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 172 172 265 

Probation with Jail Time 172 151 193 

Probation with Jail Time, Restitution or Fine 19 10 129 

Hospitalized 35 40 41 

Bench Warrants Issued 8 12 18 



1628 1595 2402 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 



THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Section 647 Penal Code — Vagrants (12 classifications) 

Section 152 — S. F. Police Code — Drunkenness in public places 

Section 488— Penal Code— Petty theft 

Section 11721 — Health & Safety Code — Narcotic addicts 

Section 242 — S. F. Police Code — Battery 

Section 148 — Penal Code 

Resisting public officers in the discharge of their duties. 

Section 240a & b — Police Code 106 113 290 

a. Lewd or indecent acts or any act of prostitution, b. Offering to secure 
another for the purpose of committing an act of prostitution. 

Section 4230 — Business & Prof. Code — Possession of Hypnotic Drugs, etc. 113 128 

Motions to Revoke Probation — New in 

All other sections 1849 



807 


481 


649 


501 


615 


640 


417 


442 


641 


224 


263 


384 


257 


278 


501 


190 


214 


327 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Section 23102 — Vehicle Code 160 75 252 

Driving under influence of liquor. (Auto license suspended, 76.) 

Section 67 — S. F. Traffic Code in 44 189 

Drunkenness in or about an automobile in a public street — said automobile 
being under his immediate control or right to access. 

Other Vehicle Sections 529 



The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hearings 
in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings to deter- 
mine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court. In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies also conduct interviews 
with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, to 
assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to prepare for trial. 



There were in excess of 500 people who called at the office of the Public Defender last year for the 
purpose of seeking advice and information concerning criminal and civil matters, which problems were dis- 
cussed with deputies when in the office; otherwise the office personnel, and arrangements made for an 
appointment. 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY 

CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND 

JUVENILE COURT 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Defendants represented Municipal 1372 1444 1639 

Juvenile 303 279 306 

Total 1675 1723 1945 

Charges filed against defendants Municipal 1776 1780 2025 

Juvenile 355 322 356 

Total 2131 2102 2381 

Number of appearances made by deputies Municipal 3328 3214 3722 

Juvenile 630 591 613 

Total 3958 3805 4335 

Of the 1945 defendants, 146 were women, or less than 8%. 

DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Defendants Held to Answer 

Municipal 646 636 664 

Juvenile 62 67 45 

Total 708 703 709 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 

Municipal 167 165 254 

Juvenile 173 136 169 



Total 



340 301 423 



Taken Over By Private Counsel 

Municipal 145 159 206 

Juvenile 45 53 42 

Total 190 212 248 

Indicted by Grand Jury 59 157 177 

Certified to Superior Court 

Municipal 21 10 6 

Juvenile 3 1 27 

Special Appearances Made 

Municipal 35 14 25 

Juvenile 8 7 4 

Fugitives Appeared for 69 66 62 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 197 195 188 

Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 12 12 2 

Held Mentally 111— Hospitalized 4 12 8 

7 



Transferred to Criminal Division — Juvenile 

Withdrew As Attorney 

Miscellaneous Disposition — Bench Warrants — Pending 

Total 1675 



8 


16 


16 


17 


10 


33 


4 


7 


17 



1723 



1945 



REDUCED CHARGES — 188 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dismissed. This 
prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 188 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 55 

Given probation (Some with fine or restitution) 42 

Given probation with suspended sentence. (Usually includes fine or restitution) 54 

Given probation with jail time. (Some include fine or restitution) 25 

Given suspended sentence 10 

Fine or jail 2 



188 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 

SUPERIOR COURT 

1958-59 

Old Cases 51 

New Cases (203 with priors) 932 

Total 983 

Of the 1088 represented, 71 were women, or about 6%. 

# # * * # 



959-60 


1960-61 


72 


66 


1002 


1022 



1074 



to88 



The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

30 days or less 43% 45% 51.6% 

31 to 60 days 35% 33% 34 % 

61 to 90 days 14% 15% 10 % 

Over 90 days 8% 7% 4.4% 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sentenced 
and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the time after trial 
and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. This period of 
time is usually three weeks. 

Those cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant — some 
represented by private counsel; cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving capital crimes and 
cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

8 



NEW CASES 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal and Juvenile Court 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 

Indicted by Grand Jury 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 



1958-59 


1959-60 


1960-61 


708 


696 


709 


24 


11 


33 


59 


i57 


177 


141 


138 


103 



Total 932 1002 1022 

DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Defendants plead guilty (during trials, 4) 

Defendants found guilty (Many of lesser included offenses) 



58-59 


1959-60 


1960-61 


462 


470 


540 


102 


100 


i54 


63 


47 


102 


3 


15 


12 


30 


37 


18 


3 


1 


1 


21 


30 


22 



1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

By Jury . . 54 47 83 

By Court 48 53 71 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 

Found guilty of lesser included offenses by trial 

Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity 

Defendants found not guilty 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

By Jury 16 24 9 

By Court 5 6 14 

In addition to the above, there were 5 jury trial disagreements and in all 368 full court trial days, not including 
court hearings or trials — such as sanity hearings, sex psycho hearings, motions to revoke or modify probation, 
motions to dismiss, etc. 

Mentally ill cases — All Jury Trials 

Substituted by Private Counsel 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 

Hearing under Section 1368 — Penal Code 

Motions to revoke probation (new cases) 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 

Motion to expunge record 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psychopaths) 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 

Withdrew as counsel — Conflict of interest or financial reason 

Miscellaneous and Bench Warrants 



Cases closed during year (old and new) 
Cases still pending 



1958-59 


1959-60 


1960-61 


8 


8 


9 


79 


69 


79 


29 


42 


36 


12 


25 


16 


38 


42 


42 


10 


7 


4 


2 


2 


2 


7 


12 


9 


2 


3 


7 


2 


4 


8 


8 


6 


6 


911 


1008 


1067 


72 


66 


21 



Total 983 1074 1088 

MURDER CASES 

During the year, the Public Defender represented 18 defendants charged with murder. They were disposed 
of as follows: 

1 plead guilty to 1st degree murder, with life penalty. 

1 found guilty of 1st degree murder, with life penalty. 

2 plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

3 plead guilty to manslaughter. 
1 found guilty of manslaughter. 
5 employed private counsel. 

3 pending. 

1 committed to Atascadero under Section 1368, Penal Code. 

1 found insane under Section 1026, Penal Code. 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 

CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 

PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1958-59 1959-60 

Defendants sentenced to Prison for term prescribed by law 180 198 

Defendants sentenced to County Jail 245 304 

Suspended sentence (sonic with fine or restitution) 2 1 

Probation granted (some with fine or restitution) 29 35 

Probation granted with suspended sentence 19 39 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed 62 75 

Probation granted with County Jail time imposed with 

restitution or fine 20 19 

Committed to Youth Authority 66 59 

Committed to State hospitals 26 25 

Total 



1960-61 
220 
300 

17 

37 

30 

100 

16 
68 
20 



808 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY 

CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1958 TO 1961 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the discretion 
of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fell into the following categories: 

1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Section 459 — Penal Code — Burglary 245 276 278 

Section 211 — Penal Code — Robbery 216 209 252 

Health & Safety Code — Narcotics charges 197 60 198 

Section 10851 — Vehicle Code — Theft of vehicle 108 96 108 

Section 470 — Penal Code — Forgery 66 91 92 

Section 487 — Penal Code — Grand Theft 149 148 86 



APPEALS 

It is the duty of the Public Defender, in any case where a conviction is had, where, in his opinion, any 
appeal to a higher Court will or might reasonably be expected to result in a reversal or modification of the 
judgment of conviction, that such appeal be taken and followed through with all the resources at their com- 
mand. 

Appeals are always taken when the Public Defender feels that error has been committed which would 
entitle his client to a new trial or where it is felt that such client has been deprived of his constitutional or 
statutory rights during the course of a criminal proceeding. 



10 



SPECIAL CASES HANDLED BY THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE 

JUVENILE COURT — 

A DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 

Section 702 

Welfare & Institutions Code 

The Public Defender represented the accused in 238 charges brought under Section 702 of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code of the State of California (contributing to the delinquency of minors). Although the 
cases covered under this section are misdemeanors, they are all tried in the Juvenile Court, a division of the 
Superior Court of the City & County of San Francisco. 

Section 261 
Penal Code 

Our office defended persons accused of 115 violations of Section 261 and related sections of the Penal Code 
(rape). This is a felony, but may be a misdemeanor, and the felony punishment is confinement in the State 
Prison for not more than fifty years. Most of the cases handled by this office are those in which the female 
prosecutrix is under the age of 18 years, in which case the punishment is either confinement in the County 
Jail for not more than a year or confinement in the State Prison for not more than fifty years. If the trial is 
by jury, the jury must set the penalty as imprisonment in the County Jail or the State Penitentiary. 

Section 288 
Penal Code 

There were 51 violations of Section 288 and related sections of the Penal Code (crimes against children; 
lewd and lascivious acts) in which the services of the Public Defender were required. The gist of the 
crime consists of acts dealing with minors under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to 
or gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires of such person or of such child. It is a felony punishable by 
confinement in the State Prison for a period of from one year to life. Section 288.1 of the Penal Code provides 
that convicted persons, before being eligible for probation or parole, shall be examined by a reputable psychi- 
atrist for a report as to their mental condition. These proceedings are under Sections 5500 to 5516 of the Wel- 
fare and Institutions Code of the State of California. 

Defendants are, when they are found to be sex psychopaths, referred to the State Hospital at Atascadero 
under the Welfare and Institutions Code sections referred to hereinabove, for a period of 90 days. During this 
period of time, all proceedings are suspended, pending examination and report as to whether or not the accused 
is a sex psychopath. If he is held to be a sex psychopath, he is committed to Atascadero for treatment for 
an indefinite period ; if not, he is sentenced by the Judge of the Juvenile Court, or probation is given. 



INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to deal intelligently with defendants and render proper 
judgments, all of the facts and circumstances must be known to the deputy so that the case may be fairly 
and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investigators employed in any private law office or 
by the District Attorney's office ; namely to locate, interview and secure signed statements from witnesses, in 
addition to making field investigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain cases, it is impos- 
sible, without an investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can deter- 
mine from the data accumulated — regardless of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused — the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In some cases, discovered evidence has resulted in showing the complete innocence of certain defendants, 
although at first the evidence appeared strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. With careful investiga- 
tion, it is possible to eliminate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a minimum long jury trials. Inves- 

11 



ligations arm the deputy in advance with a complete picture of the evidence to be presented, which he can then 
analyze to .ml him in trying the case expeditiously. 

During the fiscal year, the investigator handled 210 cases; made 661 interviews and served 117 subpoenas. 
After investigation the District Attorney dismissed 22 defendants; 14 defendants were found not guilty; 41 of 
the defendants plead guilty, thereby eliminating the necessity of a trial. 



BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1960-1961 

Salaries $140,860.00 

Temporary Salaries 341.00 

Contractual Services 2,205.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 250.00 

Materials and Supplies 848.00 

Law Books 450.00 

Expert Witness Fees 550.00 

Fixed Charges — Rent — Dues 6,750.00 

Total $152,254.00 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 

Municipal & Juvenile Courts — Misdemeanors 3025 2768 4166 

Felonies 1675 1723 1945 

Superior Court 983 1002 1088 



TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 5683 5493 7199 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court — Misdemeanors 5187 4856 7168 

Felonies 3958 3805 4335 

Superior Court 5520 5197 5096 



TOTAL APPEARANCES 14665 13858 17599 

ESTIMATED COST 

Per defendant (approximately) $21.00 $23.82 $21.15 

Per appearance (approximately) 8.13 9.45 8.65 

Printing paid for by Edward T. Mancuso, 
Public Defender, and his Staff 



12 






ANNUAL REPORT 



DOCUMENTS 

AUG 27 1962 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 

JULY 1, 1961 TO JUNE 30, 1962 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 




Edward T. Mancuso 






The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is financially 
unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to 
any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, as a matter of right, have counsel to represent 
him is still in the process of development. There is a growing recognition that this principle is basic to a 
sound administration of justice, and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding individual liberties. 

There can be no equality before the law in a criminal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prose- 
cut ing attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his command the entire resources of the police 
for investigation, is matched against a poor and often friendless defendant, confined in jail, unable to under- 
stand even the simplest legal implications of the charges against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is powerless to marshal any facts to controvert them. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 1921, paving the way for the establishment of the 
Public Defender system in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it was not until 
February, 1955, that this office was able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony 
cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, which includes those from the Peninsula and the 
Ray Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial; that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found guilty; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, 
generally, to see that each defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, under 
our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at the preliminary hearings. We thus have the oppor- 
tunity of investigating the facts in each case and of examining the testimony of the witnesses, and studying the 
transcript after the defendant has been held to answer to the Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty. We endeavor to expedite trials and oppose 
unnecessary delays. To permit a case to drag through the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the 
accused, especially when the defendants we represent are unable to post bail and are in custody pending 
the disposition of their cases. Since almost all of our clients are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten 
the time between the arrest of the accused and the disposition of his case. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ private counsel are 
required of all defendants in felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is questioned as to family responsibility 
and other possible assets. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights 
by filing certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 
4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

NEED EOB ADDITIONAL BELP 

The centralization in 1962 of all law enforcement agencies in the new Hall of Justice resulted in a re- 
organization of those courts dealing with criminal matters. In addition to the four municipal courts which 
had been serviced by our office at the old Hall of Justice, several new departments were added at the new 
Hall of Justice which not only required, but demanded, our attention. The department of the Superior Court 
originally sitting in the Juvenile Hall was transferred to the new Hall of Justice. However, pursuant to the 
provisions of the new Juvenile Court Law, Chapter 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the responsibil- 
ity of the Public Defender to represent indigents in juvenile cases was greatly increased. 

Realizing the need for additional personnel, as we were already understaffed, we submitted to the Mayor 
a request for additional personnel to enable us to adequately service those courts which we were required to 
under the General Law of the State of California and the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco. 



U.S. 

Constitution 

Provisions 



The Mayor denied our request pending the results of a survey of our office by the legal associations of San 
Francisco on the needs for additional personnel. Consequently, we have found it necessary to reshuffle our 
personnel, so as to provide the most sensitive areas of our activity with a maximum degree of service. This of 
course has meant a curtailment of most of our services to the Juvenile Court; to the San Francisco Hospital; 
and has seriously impeded the trial and investigation of cases. 

The organized Bars of San Francisco have appointed two committees, one by the San Francisco Bar 
Association and one by the San Francisco Lawyers Club, to study and survey the operation of the Public 
Defender's office and to determine whether or not the office, in order to meet its legal responsibility, is in 
need of additional help and assistance. We expect a report of the findings of these committees soon. 

Since the new Juvenile Law became effective, we have represented more than 40 juveniles, and made 
approximately 50 appearances — considerably less than we would have represented with a deputy assigned to 
the Juvenile Court. 

WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 

A social democracy, such as ours, is zealous in the preservation of individual freedoms; to the extent 
that such freedoms are not inconsistent with maintenance of the health, welfare and morals of the group 
of which the individual is a part. 

Our federal and state constitutions protect each and every citizen from oppression, in the exercise of his 
basic concerns. The protective influences of our democratic way of life find expression in the elaborate and 
extensive fabric of law which characterizes the administration of justice in situations relating to crime, to wit: 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a 
presentment or indictment of a grand jury. . . . Nor shall any person be subject for the 
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy . . . nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case 
to be a witness against himself. — 5th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public 
trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, 
to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit- 
nesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. — 6th Amendment, 
U. S. Constitution. 

. . . Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due proc- 
ess of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. — 
14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

The provisions of the California Constitution and the General Laws of the State of 
California, as well as the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, relating to 
the protection afforded those accused of crime, are not inconsistent with the provisions of 
the United States Constitution. 

The prosaic pronouncements of our Constitutions and Laws indicate nothing more 
than a profound declaration of policy on the vital subject of individual rights; if these 
utterances are to become dynamic, living forces in our national life, they will become so 
only because of the impetus given them by dedicated men and women. 

It is the preservation of these rights and the universal application of these protections 
that the Public Defender's office of San Francisco provides, under the leadership of Edward 
T. Mancuso, the Public Defender, and the men and women of his staff who have dedicated 
themselves to their work. The San Francisco Public Defender's office offers the assurance 
that each person accused of crime, irrespective of his station in life, shall receive those legal 
protections to which he is entitled under the law, no more and certainly no less. 

The office of the Public Defender of the City and County of San Francisco has the 
responsibility of assuring the underprivileged that they, as well as the privileged, shall be 
ARRESTED AND DETAINED only upon good cause shown; that they shall not be 
prosecuted TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE or REQUIRED TO BE WITNESS 
AGAINST THEMSELVES, that they SHALL ENJOY A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC 
TRIAL BY A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY; that their case shall be thoroughly 
investigated and witnesses required to attend in their behalf; and that they are REPRE- 
SENTED BY COMPETENT COUNSEL during all stages of the proceeding and 
ACCORDED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PROCEEDING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 



California 

Constitution 

& General 

Laws 





Cost 

to 

Taxpayer 



For the preservation of these freedoms thousands of Americans have paid with their 
lives; however, the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco are required to pay 
much less, in effect a little more than ONE CENT IN THE TAX RATE FOR THE 
COST OF OPERATING THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. If it were properly 
staffed, it would not cost two cents in the tax rate. 

IS THIS TOO MUCH TO PAY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS 
WE CHERISH? 

BUDGETS 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 1955-56 1962-63 

Budget $ 90,063 (Salaries $ 81,685) $156,187 (Salaries $151,497) 

Employees n 13 

We received two employees over 7 years, both of which should have been granted when we started han- 
dling misdemeanors in 1955. Since that time our case load of persons represented has TRIPLED. 

PROBATION DEPARTMENT 

Budget $i74>45 2 (Salaries $153,954) h'i'iS 1 ! (Salaries $315,884) 

Employees 31 41 

Ten new employments. 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

Budget $454,111 (Salaries $373,049) $645,618 (Salaries $601,632) 

Employees 56 62 

Six new employments. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Budget $10,021,204 $15,926,444 

Employees 1814 1871 

Fifty-seven new employments. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors just recently approved a request 
for 143 new civilian positions for the San Francisco Police Department and appropriated $640,067 for this 
purpose and for operations. 

— NOTE — 

$148,000 represents one cent in the tax rate in San Francisco on the secured and unsecured assessment roll. 

We handle over 70% of the felony cases in San Francisco and between 80% and 85% of the contested 
misdemeanor cases. 

Our office is less than J4 the s i ze °f tne District Attorney's office, plus the fact that they have the whole 
Police Department for investigation purposes. We are l / 3 the size of the Probation Department. 

It costs only a little over one cent in the tax rate to support our office and would cost only about i l / 2 cents 
in the tax rate to properly staff our office. 

Is this too much money to protect the individual rights, liberty and welfare of our citizens who are indi- 
gent and cannot afford to employ their own counsel, which right is set forth in the 5th Amendment, the 6th 
Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution; in the General Laws of the State of Cali- 
fornia; in the Constitution of the State of California; and in the Charter of the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco ? 

Certainly these people are entitled to have protection from being detained except upon good cause 
shown; not to be prosecuted twice for the same offense; not to be witness against themselves; to have a 
speedy and public trial by a fair and impartial jury; to have their case thoroughly investigated and witnesses 
required to attend on their behalf; and to be represented by competent counsel during all stages of the pro- 
ceedings and accorded in all phases of the proceedings due process of law. 

For the preservation of these freedoms, thousands of Americans paid with their lives. 

Is it then asking too much for the citizens of San Francisco to pay less than two cents in its tax rate for the 
cost of operating a properly staffed Public Defender's office for the protection of these rights we cherish so 
much ? 



PERSONNEL 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

Public Defender 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 

2 Principal Attorneys, Criminal 

4 Senior Attorneys, Criminal 

i Trial Attorney. Criminal 

i Investigator 

i Confidential Secretary — with legal training 

i General Clerk-Stenographer 

i General Clerk-Typist 
The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 
Our offices are located at the new Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco 3, California; tele- 
phone KLondike 3-1671. 

MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 
level than in situations involving the commission of a felony. This is due, in part, to the fact that before a 
trial and conviction or acquittal in a felony case there must have been a preliminary screening of the evi- 
dence before a Grand Jury or a Committing magistrate. 

Our concept of justice requires that a person charged with the commission of a misdemeanor, who is 
unable to employ counsel, has the same right to expect and receive a fair trial which includes adequate rep- 
resentation and presentation of his defense, as does the person who is sufficiently affluent to employ counsel 
of his own choosing or who has counsel provided for him because he is charged with a more serious offense. 
Any other position would most certainly be at odds with our traditional ideas of justice and would most 
assuredly be a denial of due process. 

We are finding that an increasing number of so called minor offenses or misdemeanors are continually 
presenting more complex issues and carrying more severe penalties; some penalties, in their practical implica- 
tions, are considerably more severe than penalties in some felony cases. Serious, surprising and unanticipated 
results often follow when an uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to a minor offense either in 
order to save time or to win an expected suspension of sentence. There is no criteria that can be utilized to 
measure these circumstances. In the main the problem is one that is essentially parochial in nature and must be 
resolved on the basis of each community's need. In larger communities there is an ever pressing need for rep- 
resentation in all criminal proceedings, although there are no available statistics by which to measure the 
volume of cases. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and carry severe penalties, our experience has 
convinced us that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public Defender greatly decreases 
the possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many cases. 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Number of defendants represented 2768 4166 6476 

Charges filed against defendants 4067 6490 10268 

Number of appearances made by deputies 4856 7168 IJ 435 

Of the defendents, 660 were women, or approximately 10 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Defendants plead guilty 702 749 1675 

Defendants found guilty 893 1653 2198 

Defendants dismissed or discharged* 509 816 1030 

Defendants found not guilty 309 322 361 



68 


366 


453 


34 


5i 


100 


i8 


21 


18 


5 


2 


5 


38 


49 


100 


1 


1 


152 


3i 


37 


42 


22 


21 


56 


28 


62 


213 


4 


16 


32 


— 


— 


4 r 



Liken over In' Private Counsel 

Motions to Revoke Probation — New 34 

Certified to fuvenile Court — Minors 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 

S|k\ 1.1I Appearances 

Motions to Expunge Records — Granted 

Defendants Committed— Mentally 111 

Warrants Issued 

Made Rail— Public Defender Withdrew 

Cases still pending 

Miscellaneous— Bail Forfeited 

•Note 1 : Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, alter a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and 
therefore dismissed the charges filed against him. 

UNIT OF COUNTING 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the defendant, rather than the case or charge. If several 
cases on one individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, they are combined. When there 
arc multiple cases or charges, a defendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there are dismissals or 
acquittals on all such cases or charges. A defendant is counted as convicted when there is a conviction on any 
one of a group of cases or charges. 

MISDEMEANOR JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thorough dis- 
cussion of the case with the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent said client, there is almosi always 
a request by the client who had previously demanded a jury trial that the demand for the jury trial be waived, 
and the case referred back to the original Judge for final disposition. 

Last year we had only 9 actual jury trials out of 107 demands. 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
EITHER PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Committed to County Jail 354 505 775 

Fined or Jail Time 37 81 311 

Fined with Jail Time 55 10 28 

Sentenced to Time Served 16 45 64 

Suspended Sentence 294 456 857 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 26 23 140 

Probation Granted 331 219 272 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 97 417 655 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 172 265 552 

Probation with Jail Time 151 193 154 

Probation with Jail Time, Restitution or Fine 10 129 40 

Hospitalized 40 41 n 

Bench Warrants Issued 12 18 14 



1595 2402 3873 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
.six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 



214 


3 2 7 


438 
264 
360 


442 


641 


893 
244 


481 


649 


1075 


6i 5 


640 


1054 


278 


501 


567 
273 


"3 


128 


268 


263 


384 


3 6 9 
146 



THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Section 148 — Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties. 

Section 270 — Penal Code — Child neglect 

Section 415 — Penal Code — Affray and Disturbing Peace 

Section 488— Penal Code— Petty theft 

Section 594 — Penal Code — Malicious Mischief 

Section 647 — Penal Code — Disorderly conduct (8 sections) 

New section. Vagrancy provisions of prior years repealed. 

Section 152 — S. F. Police Code — Drunkenness in public places 

Section 242 — S. F. Police Code — Battery 

Section 4143A — Business & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypodermic needle or syringe. 

Section 4230 — Business & Prof. Code — Possession of hypnotic drugs, etc. 

Section 11721 — Health & Safety Code — Narcotic addicts 

Section 2101 — Unemployment Insurance Code 

False statement or representation or concealment. 
All other sections 2796 

MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Section 67 — S. F. Traffic Code 

Drunkenness in or about an automobile in a public street, said automobile 

being under his immediate control or right to access. 44 189 310 

Section 10852 — Vehicle Code — Breaking or removing vehicle parts 170 

Section 12951 — Vehicle Code — Possession of license 263 

Section 14601 — Vehicle Code — Driving without valid license 218 

Section 23102 — Vehicle Code — Driving under influence of liquor 75 252 405 

Other Vehicle sections 1155 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hearings 
in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings to deter- 
mine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court. In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies also conduct interviews 
with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, to 
assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to prepare for trial. 

There were in excess of 600 people who called at the office of the Public Defender last year for the 
purpose of seeking advice and information concerning criminal and civil matters, which problems were dis- 
cussed with deputies when in the office; otherwise the office personnel, and arrangements made for an 
appointment. 






PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY 
CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Defendants represented in Municipal Court 

Charges filed against defendants in Municipal Court 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Municipal Court 

Of the 2018 defendants, 154 were women, or less than 8%. 

Juvenile and Municipal Court records combined since moving to new Hall of Justice. 



959-60 


1960-61 


1961-62 


1723 


1945 


2018 


2102 


2381 


2465 


3805 


4335 


4706 



DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 



1 vu ml. mis 1 [eld to Answer 
Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 

Taken Over By Private Counsel 

Indicted by Grand fury 

Certified to -Superior Court 

Special Appearances Made 

Fugitives Appeared for 

( lharges Reduced to Misdemeanors 

Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 

Held Mentally 111 — Hospitalized 

Transferred to Criminal Division — Juvenile 

Withdrew As Attorney 

Miscellaneous Disposition — Bench Warrants — Pending 



959-60 


1960-61 


1961-62 


703 


709 


975 


301 


423 


226 


212 


248 


256 


157 


177 


i37 


II 


33 


37 


21 


29 


5 1 


66 


62 


54 


i95 


188 


176 


12 


2 


13 


12 


8 


8 


16 


16 


7 


10 


33 


5 2 


7 


17 


26 



Total 1723 1945 2018 

REDUCED CHARGES — 176 DEPENDENTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dismissed. This 
prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 176 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 52 

Suspended sentence with County Jail time (some with fine or restitution) 35 

Probation or suspended sentence (some with fine or restitution) 85 

Pending 4 



176 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 
SUPERIOR COURT 

1959-60 

Old Cases 72 

New Cases (240 with priors) 1002 



Total 1074 1088 1249 

Of the 1249 represented, 78 were women, or about 6%. 
The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

30 days or less 45% 51.6% 53.8% 

31 to 60 days 33% 34 % 33- 2 % 

61 to 90 days 15% 10 % 9.5% 

Over 90 days 7% 4-4% 3-5% 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sentenced 
and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the time after trial 
and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. This period of 
time is usually three weeks. 

Those cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant — some 
represented by private counsel ; cases where there was more than one trial ; cases involving capital crimes and 
cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 



1960-61 


1961-62 


66 


21 


1022 


1228 



8 






NEW CASES 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal Court 696 709 973 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty n 33 37 

Indicted by Grand Jury 157 177 136 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 138 103 82 



47 


102 


72 


37 


18 


37 


1 


1 


2 


30 


22 


17 



Total 1002 1022 1228 

DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Defendants plead guilty ■ 470 540 652 

Defendants found guilty (Many of lesser included offenses) 115 162 117 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

By Jury 47 83 30 

By Court 53 71 87 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 

Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity 

Defendants found not guilty 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

By Jury 24 9 3 

By Court 6 14 14 

During the fiscal year the Public Defender's office made 613 motions for probation in the felony cases han- 
dled. In 414 cases probation was denied and in 199 cases probation was granted; we also filed 15 writs of 
habeas corpus. 

Mentally ill cases — All Jury Trials 

Substituted by Private Counsel 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 

Hearing under Section 1368 — Penal Code 

Motions to revoke probation (new cases) 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 

Motion to expunge record 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psychopaths) 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 

Withdrew as counsel — Conflict of interest or financial reason 

Miscellaneous and Bench Warrants 



1959-60 


1960-61 


1961-62 


8 


9 


6 


6 9 


79 


90 


42 


36 


22 


25 


16 


61 


42 


42 


44 


7 


4 


6 


2 


2 


2 


12 


9 


20 


3 


7 


3 


4 


8 


11 


6 


6 
1067 


8 


1008 


1 170 


66 


21 


76 



Cases closed during year (old and new) 

Cases still pending 

Total 1074 1088 1249 

MURDER CASES 

During the year, the Public Defender represented 17 defendants charged with murder. They were disposed 
of as follows: 

3 plead guilty to 1st degree murder, with life penalty. 

1 found guilty of 1st degree murder, with life penalty. 

1 found guilty in 1st degree murder, with death penalty; affirmed on appeal. 

3 plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

4 plead guilty to manslaughter. 
1 found guilty of manslaughter. 
4 employed private counsel. 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 

CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 

PLEAD GUILTY, WERE FOUND GUILTY, OR 

WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1959-60 1960-61 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 198 220 

Sentenced to County Jail 304 300 

Probation or suspended sentence with County Jail time 94 116 

( Some with fine or restitution.) 
Probation or suspended sentence 75 84 

(Some with fine or restitution.) 

Committed to Youth Authority 59 68 

Committed to State Hospitals 25 20 

Committed under Narcotics Addict Control Program (New) 

Remanded to Municipal Court under Section 1368, PC 

Miscellaneous 

Total 



1961-62 
202 

363 
167 

66 

55 
54 

8 
21 

6 



942 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY 

CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1959 TO 1962 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the discretion 
of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fell into the following categories: 

1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Section 459 — Penal Code — Burglary 276 278 285 

Section 211 — Penal Code — Robbery 209 252 175 

Health & Safety Code — Narcotics charges 60 198 207 

Section 10851 — Vehicle Code — Theft of vehicle 96 108 133 

Section 470 — Penal Code — Forgery 91 92 135 

Section 487— Penal Code— Grand Theft 148 86 80 



APPEALS 

It is the duty of the Public Defender, in any case where a conviction is had, where, in his opinion, any 
appeal to a higher Court will or might reasonably be expected to result in a reversal or modification of the 
judgment of conviction, that such appeal be taken and followed through with all the resources at their com- 
mand. 

Appeals are always taken when the Public Defender feels that error has been committed which would 
entitle his client to a new trial or where it is felt that such client has been deprived of his constitutional or 
statutory rights during the course of a criminal proceeding. Last year two appeals were filed by our office. 



10 



SPECIAL. CASES HANDLED BY THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER TS THE 

JUVENILE COUBT — 

Section 60 1 et sec W & I Code 

In the past the Public Defender has been called upon by the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court to 
represent juveniles before the Court. Representation by the Public Defender has been primarily for the pur- 
pose of facilitating the action of the Court and secondarily for the purpose of presenting in an orderly 
fashion the opposing view in a complex factual situation. Prior to the action of the 1961 legislature the right 
of a minor to representation by counsel was not a matter of right and it was generally conceded that in such 
proceedings representation by counsel was not a matter of procedural due process. However, the 1 961 session 
of the state legislature amended the Juvenile Court law to provide for representation by counsel in Juvenile 
Court cases. The new law became effective the 15th of September, 1961, and is included in Chapter 2 of the 
Welfare and Institution Code, Sections 500 to 914. 

Our office in conjunction with the Juvenile Court and with the Court's approval has participated in 
hearings involving juvenile offenders as a pilot study preparatory to the effective operation of the new system. 

The law provides in Section 634: "When it appears to the Court that the minor or his parent or guardian 
desires counsel but is indigent and cannot for that reason employ counsel, the Court may appoint counsel. In 
such a case the Court must appoint counsel for the minor if he is charged with misconduct which would 
constitute a felony if committed by an adult. In any case in which it appears to the Court that there is such 
a conflict of interest between a parent or guardian and child that one attorney could not properly represent 
both, the Court may appoint counsel in addition to counsel already employed by a parent or guardian or 
appointed by the Court to represent the minor or a parent or guardian." 

See also Sections 633, 658, 659, 700. 



INTEBNSHIP PROGRAM 

In May, i960, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco approved the following 
ordinance for the establishment of an Internship Program in the office of the Public Defender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attorneys. The public defender is hereby authorized 
to institute a system of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of the City and County 
of San Francisco to serve in the office of the public defender and thereby acquire experience in the 
field of criminal law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and under the supervision of the pub- 
lic defender and permanent members of the office of the public defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this system of internship shall be designated and shall 
serve at the pleasure of the public defender. Each attorney so designated must be qualified to practice 
in all the courts of the state. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of any kind or nature paid to said law students 
or attorneys, nor shall any such person be eligible to be a member of the retirement system of the 
City and County of San Francisco or have any rights thereunder by reason of such service. 

The office has made it a policy that only those attorneys who had two years of actual practice and experi- 
ence would actually take over the defense of any indigent. 

The Public Defender's office is indeed indebted and very grateful to Jesse M. Zimmerman who served 
under the internship program in our office last year when we were in dire need of additional help. Mr. Zim- 
merman is an Associate Professor in the Business Division of San Francisco State College; he is a graduate 
of the University of Nebraska in electrical engineering in 1922; a graduate from Loyola University in Chicago 
with a Juris Doctor's Degree. He passed the bar in Illinois in 1942 and the California Bar in 1946. At San 
Francisco State College he now teaches business law. He also served as Deputy District Attorney for 18 
months in Santa Clara County and he has a business background in engineering and management positions. 

11 



INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to deal intelligently with defendants and render proper 
judgments, .til of the facts and circumstances must be known to the deputy so that the case may be fairly 
and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investigators employed in any private law office or 
by the District Attorney's office; namely to locate, interview and secure signed statements from witnesses, in 
addition to making field investigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain cases, it is impos- 
sible, without an investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can deter- 
mine from the data accumulated — regardless of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused — the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In some cases, discovered evidence has resulted in showing the complete innocence of certain defendants, 
although at first the evidence appeared strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. With careful investiga- 
tion, it is jK)ssible to eliminate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a minimum long jury trials. 

The attorneys in the handling of criminal cases in our office have worked under a severe handicap with 
only one investigator. It is not possible to properly investigate the many cases requiring investigation handled 
by our office, without the aid and assistance of additional investigation services. Our case load has tripled 
since the year 1954-55 with no increase in investigation services, even though continuously requested. 

BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1961-62 

Salaries $146,000.00 

Temporary Salaries 350.00 

Contractual Services 2,155.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 200.00 

Materials and Supplies 853.00 

Law Books and Equipment (New Car) 2,560.00 

Expert Witness Fees 550.00 

Fixed Charges — Dues 150.00 

Total $152,818.00 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 

Municipal & Juvenile Courts — Misdemeanors 2768 4166 6476 

Felonies 1723 1945 2018 

Superior Court 1002 1088 1249 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 5493 7199 9743 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court — Misdemeanors 4856 7168 H435 

Felonies 3805 4335 4722 

Superior Court 5197 5096 5552 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 13858 17599 21709 

ESTIMATED COST 

Per defendant (approximately) $23.82 $21.15 $15.68 

Per appearance (approximately) 9.45 8.65 7.01 

Printing paid for by Edward T. Mancuso, 
Public Defender, and his Staff 



12 



t-r f 



ANNUAL REPORT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUN#§ P I r 
OF SAN FRANCISCO ifflL/^fe* 

JULY 1, 1963 TO JUNE 30, 1964 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 



PUBLIC DEFENDER 




The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is financially 
unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to 
any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



FOREWORD 

The principle that every person accused of crime should, as a matter of right, have counsel to represent 
him is still in the process of development. There is a growing recognition that this principle is basic to a 
sound administration of justice, and that putting it to work is a necessary way of guarding individual liberties. 

There can be no equality before the law in a criminal proceeding where an experienced and skillful prose- 
CUting attorney, backed by the power of the state and having at his command the entire resources of the police 
for investigation, is matched against a poor and often friendless defendant, confined in jail, unable to under- 
lain! even the simplest legal implications of the charges against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is [>owerless to marshal any facts to controvert them. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legislation in 1921, paving the way for the establishment of the 
Public Defender system in the State of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it was not until 
February, 1955, that this office was able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, as well as in felony 
cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco, which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, which includes those from the Peninsula and the 
Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibility is to see that each defendant is granted a 
fair and impartial trial; that all of his rights are preserved; that the innocent are not found guilty; that every 
possible defense is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any mitigating circumstances exist; and, 
generally, to see that each defendant receives every protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, under 
our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony cases at the preliminary hearings. We thus have the oppor- 
tunity of investigating the facts in each case and of examining the testimony of the witnesses, and studying the 
transcript after the defendant has been held to answer to the Superior Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dismissals of the guilty. We endeavor to expedite trials and oppose 
unnecessary delays. To permit a case to drag through the criminal courts works a great hardship upon the 
accused, especially when the defendants we represent are unable to post bail and are in custody pending 
the disposition of their cases. Since almost all of our clients are unable to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten 
the time between the arrest of the accused and the disposition of his case. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that none but those eligible for legal service by the 
Public Defender's office are represented. Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ private counsel are 
required of all defendants in felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is questioned as to family responsibility 
and other possible assets. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights 
by filing certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 
4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF APPRECIATION 

The staff of the Public Defender's office is grateful to the Honorable John F. Shelley, Mayor, and the 
Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco for having approved two additional attorneys 
and a legal stenographer for our staff, effective July 1, 1964. 

This conduct on the part of our Mayor and Board of Supervisors expresses in action rather than words 
the recognition that every citizen, regardless of his station in life, is entitled to legal representation and 
advice in the protection of his rights and freedom ; a step forward in the attainment of a system of jurispru- 
dence to provide equal justice — under law. 

The two attorneys provided have been needed for some time to help cope with the tremendously increased 
case load of the office, as is reflected in the Annual Report for 1963-1964. 



City and County of San Francisco 
Public Defender 



EDWARD T, MANCUSO 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 



Hall of Justice 
850 BRYANT STREET. ROOM 205 
San Francisco, California. 94103 

DOOWiJHflrS 
SEP1 1964 



KLONDIKE 3-1671 



FOR YOUR INFORMATION: 

I am enclosing a copy of the report covering the 
operation of the Public Defenders office in San Francisco 
for the fiscal year 1963-6U. It is interesting to note 
that it cost only a little more than 1^ in the tax rate 
to operate the Public Defender's office in San Francisco 
last year. 

During the year we represented 13,159 defendants. 
In addition, we interviewed 1102 people in our office, 
arising out of the new bail ( on-installment) program. 
Also, in excess of 750 people called at our office asking 
for help and assistance. 

It is further interesting to note that the increase 
in the number of defendants represented by our office has 
increased 8>0% since the fiscal year 1960-61 at which time 
we were understaffed. We received no help to take care 
of this tremendously increased case load under the prior 
administration, even though it was requested yearly. 

Thanks to Mayor Jack Shelley and the Board of Super- 
visors, we did get some additional help this year, that 
will be noticeable starting in October, after the backlog 
of vacations of the deputies has been taken care of. 

The office still needs additional investigators and 
legal help for handling appeals and writs. 

Sincerely, 



ETM : pm 





EDWARD [T. MANCUS 
Public \Def ender 




The number of indigent defendants represented by our office has INCREASED BY MORE THAN 
8o° since the fiscal year 1960-61, in addition to the fact that we are now called upon to interview defendants 
in the office under the new "bail-on-installment" program which was not required heretofore. There were 
1 102 interviews last year under this new program. 

We also made 85 appearances at the Juvenile Court and 55 bedside appearances in the psychopathic ward 
of the San Francisco Hospital, all of which are not reflected in the tabulation of the defendants represented 
by our office. 

The attorney designated "principal attorney" will be primarily assigned to the Superior Court, providing 
representation in felony matters. The other attorney, a senior attorney, will be primarily assigned to represen- 
tation in misdemeanors and felony preliminary hearings in the Municipal Court in addition to trials in both 
Superior and Municipal Court. 

Further, vacations and illness still immediately cause a shortage of deputies available on any given day. 
There was such a backlog of vacations that the expected relief with the additional help will not be notice- 
able until October 1. 

The additional legal stenographer will help relieve the existing load on the present clerical staff and will 
be able to provide the deputies in the office with some stenographic help. 

Though we are still understaffed, we greatly appreciate the consideration given to us by Mayor Shelley 
and the Board of Supervisors. We are prepared to continue our monumental task with renewed energy and 
vigor. 

In the dedicated endeavor of my staff to continue being the model Public Defender's office in the United 
States, we wish to stress the fact that our office still has but ONE INVESTIGATOR to service the eleven 
attorneys and 13 or more courts. With our case load there is a minimum requirement of two additional 
investigators. 

The Supreme Court of the State of California has emphasized the need for representation to indigents 
who have filed appeals. Even with the additional two deputies, the increasing case load and court coverage 
makes it virtually impossible to give proper representation in appeals. We still need an additional attorney for 
the purpose of giving effective representation in appeal matters. 

Again, on behalf of myself and the staff of the Public Defender's office, our sincere thanks and apprecia- 
tion to Mayor Shelley and the Board of Supervisors for their assistance and consideration in helping us in our 
endeavor to achieve the goal all we Americans desire — the achievement of equal justice for all. 

WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 

A social democracy, such as ours, is zealous in the preservation of individual freedoms; to the extent 
that such freedoms are not inconsistent with maintenance of the health, welfare and morals of the group 
of which the individual is a part. 

Our federal and state constitutions protect each and every citizen from oppression, in the exercise of his 
basic concerns. The protective influences of our democratic way of life find expression in the elaborate and 
extensive fabric of law which characterizes the administration of justice in situations relating to crime, to wit: 
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a 

presentment or indictment of a grand jury Nor shall any person be subject for the 

same offense to be twice put in jeopardy . . . nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case 
to be a witness against himself. — 5th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public 
trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, 
to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit- 
nesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. — 6th Amendment, 
U. S. Constitution. 

. . . Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due proc- 
ess of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. — 
14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

The provisions of the California Constitution and the General Laws of the State of 
California, as well as the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, relating to 
the protection afforded those accused of crime, are not inconsistent with the provisions of 
the United States Constitution. 



U.S. 

Constitution 

Provisions 



California 

Constitution 

& General 

Laws 



Protection 

of 

Rights 




The prosaic pronouncements of our Constitutions and Laws indicate nothing more 
than .1 profound declaration of policy on the vital subject of individual rights; if these 
Utterances arc to become dynamic, living forces in our national life, they will become so 
only because ol the impetus given them by dedicated men and women. 

It is the preservation of these rights and the universal application of these protections 
that the Public Defender's office of San Francisco provides, under the leadership of Edward 
T. Mancuso, the Public Defender, and the men and women of his staff who have dedicated 
themselves to their work. The San Francisco Public Defender's office offers the assurance 
that each |>erson accused of crime, irrespective of his station in life, shall receive those legal 
protections to which he is entitled under the law, no more and certainly no less. 

The office of the Public Defender of the City and County of San Francisco has the 
responsibility of assuring the underprivileged that they, as well as the privileged, shall be 
ARRESTED AND DETAINED only upon good cause shown; that they shall not be 
prosecuted TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE or REQUIRED TO BE WITNESS 
AGAINST THEMSELVES, that they SHALL ENJOY A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC 
TRIAL BY A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY; that their case shall be thoroughly 
investigated and witnesses required to attend in their behalf; and that they are REPRE- 
SENTED BY COMPETENT COUNSEL during all stages of the proceeding and 
ACCORDED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PROCEEDING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
For the preservation of these freedoms thousands of Americans have paid with their 
lives; however, the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco are required to pay 
much less, in effect a little more than ONE CENT IN THE TAX RATE FOR THE 
COST OF OPERATING THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. If it were properly 
staffed, it would not cost two cents in the tax rate. 
Is this too much money to protect the individual rights, liberty and welfare of our citizens who are indi- 
gent and cannot afford to employ their own counsel, which right is set forth in the 5th Amendment, the 6th 
Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution; in the General Laws of the State of Cali- 
fornia; in the Constitution of the State of California; and in the Charter of the City and County of San Fran- 



Cost 

to 

Taxpayer 



Cisco : 



Certainly these people are entitled to have protection from being detained except upon good cause 
shown; not to be prosecuted twice for the same offense; not to be witness against themselves; to have a 
speedy and public trial by a fair and impartial jury; to have their case thoroughly investigated and witnesses 
required to attend on their behalf; and to be represented by competent counsel during all stages of the pro- 
ceedings and accorded in all phases of the proceedings due process of law. 

For the preservation of these freedoms, thousands of Americans paid with their lives. 

Is it then asking too much for the citizens of San Francisco to pay less than two cents in its tax rate for the 
cost of operating a properly staffed Public Defender's office. 

IS THIS TOO MUCH TO PAY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS WE CHERISH? 



CURRENT TRENDS IN DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 
SUPREME COURT IN UPHOLDING RIGHTS OF 
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES 

Edward T. Mancuso, San Francisco Public Defender, is Chairman of the Committee on Defense of Indi- 
gent Persons of the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association. 

In this capacity he submitted to the Criminal Law Section on August 13, 1964 in New York City the 
following report and resolution, which resolution was adopted by the Criminal Law Section of the American 
Bar Association. 

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 
OF INDIGENT PERSONS 

Within the last few years, recent United States Supreme Court decisions have more and more upheld 
individual constitutional rights involving criminal due process; such as right to counsel, double jeopardy, 
privilege against self-incrimination, confessions and search and seizures. 



Constitutional rights mean nothing to an indigent defendant unless he is provided with effective counsel 
to see that he is, in fact, afforded a proteciton of due process as delineated by the Supreme Court. The decisions 
of the Supreme Court respecting rights to counsel have established the following safeguards. 

i. The right to counsel in both capital and non-capital cases is necessary to satisfy the requirements of 
the Constitution of the United States in both state and federal jurisdiction. 

Landmark cases respecting the U.S. Constitution 6th and 14th amendments are: 

Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1932) 

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) 

Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) overruling Betts v. Brady 316 U.S. 455 (1942) 

2. The scope of the right is broad enough to require counsel virtually at any stage of criminal proceed- 
ings. 

Landmark cases are: 
At preliminary hearing: 

White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (1963) 
At arraignment: 

Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961) 
Setting aside due process in the middle of a trial: 

Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U.S. 697 (i960) 
At least during the first appeal on the merits of the case: 

In Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) 

In Escobedo v. Illinois, vol. 12 L ed 2nd No. 7 
In the latter case the Supreme Court has brought the right to counsel into the police interrogation room. 
As Justice Goldberg pointed out for the majority, 

"We have learned the lesson of history, ancient and modern, that a system of criminal law enforcement 
which comes to depend on the 'confession' will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to 
abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence independently secured through skillful inves- 
tigation." 

3. Due process may be violated by restrictions on the activities of counsel. 
Denial of hearing through counsel: 

Chander v. Fretag 348 U.S. 3 (1954) 

Reynold v. Cochran 365 U.S. 525 (1961) 
Right to a hearing to determine whether counsel was denied as alleged: 

Reynold v. Cochran 365 U.S. 525 (1961) 
Right to be questioned on direct examination rather than submit an unsworn statement. 

Ferguson v. Georgia 365 U.S. 570 (1961) 

4. Waiver of counsel. 

A waiver must be competently and intelligently done and a silent record will not amount to a waiver, 
nor will it raise the presumption of waiver: 
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) 
Charnley v. Cochran, 360 U.S. 506 (1962) 

The decisions of the Supreme Court have caused great concern in recognizing the right to counsel in 
criminal cases. Our Committee and the American Bar Association have a duty to see that these rights of the 
people suspected or accused of crime are protected at every stage of the proceedings throughout the United 
States. The same standards should apply in the State Courts as well as in the Federal Courts. 

Our Committee should continue to seek safeguards for the accused not only in felony matters but in 
most misdemeanors and cases involving juveniles as well. Our concepts of justice require that a juvenile or a 
person charged with the commission of a misdemeanor has the right to adequate representation. 

Our Committee should go on record by adopting the resolution attached urging the protecting and safe- 
guarding of individual rights in criminal matters emphasized in recent United States Supreme Court decisions. 



I In Sub Committee on Defense of Indigent Persons submits the following Resolution for adoption: 

RESOLVED: Thai the Committee on Defense of Indigent Persons supports as a fundamental principle 
<>l law the concept thai .ill indigent persons are entitled, as a matter of constitutional right, to have adequate, 
ithi tive, independent legal counsel provided to insure the safeguarding of his constitutional rights in all crim- 
inal matters and when any criminal accusation is brought against them, and 

Thai s.inl counsel should always be provided to defend all criminal accusations, at the misdemeanor level 
as well as m felony cases, and 

lli.it counsel should also be provided for indigent juveniles as well as for their parents or guardians, if 
indigent. 

HK IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association is 
urged to adopt this Resolution and to recommend to the Board of Governors of the American Bar Associa- 
tion that similar action be taken by them. 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO, Chairman 
Committee on Defense of Indigent Persons 

BAIL ON INSTALLMENT ] 

Since moving into the new Hall of Justice a new procedure has developed in arranging for bail for people 
taken into custody. 

Some of the bail firms have adopted a program of accepting payment of bail fees on the installment plan. 
The defendant pays a small down payment and makes an arrangement with the broker to pay the balance of 
the bail fee over a period of time, thus allowing him to immediately get out on bail, resume his employment 
and family life until the case comes to court for determination and disposition. 

To determine the indigency of these people who are now out on bail has presented another problem for 
the Public Defender's office in the City and County of San Francisco. To meet this situation we have prepared 
an application for these people to fill out when they call at the office of the Public Defender to determine 
their indigency or their eligibility for our services. 

Those who have assets and available funds for the employment of private counsel are referred to the San 
Francisco Bar Association who in turn refer them to three attorneys selected from a panel of attorneys who 
have expressed their interest in handling criminal cases. 

Last year under this program there were 1102 applications made in our office. Each one had to be ques- 
tioned and interviewed by an attorney of the office coicerning their request for our services under this new 
program. 

Of the 1 102 that applied in our office, 905 were approved for the services of the Public Defender; 177 
were referred to the San Francisco Bar Association and 20 were disapproved, with the recommendation that 
they employ their own counsel. This averages a little hss than 5 applicants per day. 

PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION 
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1964 

Our office consists of the following personnel: per month 

Public Defender I 1923.50 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 1337-1625 

3 Principal Attorneys, Criminal 1212-1474 

5 Senior Attorneys, Criminal 997-1212 

1 Trial Attorney, Criminal 821-997 

1 Investigator 660-802 

1 Confidential Secretary — with legal training 693 

1 Legal Stenographer 415-505 

1 General Clerk-Stenographer 405-493 

1 General Clerk-Typist 367-447 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 

Our offices are located at the new Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco 94103, California; tele- 
phone KLondike 3-1671. 

6 



MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor 
level than in situations involving the commission of a felony. This is due, in part, to the fact that before a 
trial and conviction or acquittal in a felony case there must have been a preliminary screening of the evi- 
dence before a Grand Jury or a Committing magistrate. 

Our concept of justice requires that a person charged with the commission of a misdemeanor, who is 
unable to employ counsel, has the same right to expect and receive a fair trial which includes adequate rep- 
resentation and presentation of his defense, as does the person who is sufficiently affluent to employ counsel 
of his own choosing or who has counsel provided for him because he is charged with a more serious offense. 
Any other position would most certainly be at odds with our traditional ideas of justice and would most 
assuredly be a denial of due process. 

We are finding that an increasing number of so called minor offenses or misdemeanors are continually 
presenting more complex issues and carrying more severe penalties; some penalties, in their practical implica- 
tions, are considerably more severe than penalties in some felony cases. Serious, surprising and unanticipated 
results often follow when an uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to a minor offense either in 
order to save time or to win an expected suspension of sentence. There is no criteria that can be utilized to 
measure these circumstances. In the main the problem is one that is essentially parochial in nature and must be 
resolved on the basis of each community's need. In larger communities there is an ever pressing need for rep- 
resentation in all criminal proceedings, although there are no available statistics by which to measure the 
volume of cases. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors and carry severe penalties, our experience has 
convinced us that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public Defender greatly decreases 
the possibility of any miscarriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many cases. 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Number of defendants represented 4166 6476 9252 

Charges filed against defendants 6490 10268 J 3899 

Number of appearances made by deputies 7168 1 1435 15608 

Of the defendants, 1153 were women, or approximately 12%. 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Defendants plead guilty 749 1675 2944 

Defendants found guilty 1653 2198 2922 

Defendants dismissed or discharged* 816 1030 1442 

Defendants found not guilty 322 361 609 

Taken over by Private Counsel 366 453 386 

Special Appearance for Arrangement and Counsel ... 235 

Motions to Revoke Probation — New 51 100 273 

Certified to Juvenile Court — Minors 21 18 17 

Certified to Superior Court under Section 1368 Penal Code 54 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 2 5 13 

Special Appearances 49 100 58 

Motions to Expunge Records — Granted 1 152 42 

Defendants Committed— Mentally 111 37 4 2 55 

Warrants Issued 21 56 109 

Made Bail— Public Defender Withdrew 62 213 23 

Cases still pending 16 32 55 

Miscellaneous — Bail Forfeited, etc 4 1 l 5 

7 



•Note i : Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases 
where, alter .1 court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and 
therefore dismissed the charges hied against him. In over 25% of the cases where charges were filed 
against defendants, the defendants were dismissed or found not guilty. 

UNIT OF COUNTING 

The mi u ol counting in our criminal statistics is the defendant, rather than the case or charge. If several 
cases on one individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, they are combined. When there 
are multiple cases or charges, a defendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only if there are dismissals or 
acquittals on all such cases or charges. A defendant is counted as convicted when there is a conviction on any 
One ol .1 group ol cases or charges. 

MISDEMEANOR JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thorough dis- 
cussion ol the case with the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent said client, there is almost always 
a request by the client who had previously demanded a jury trial that the demand for the jury trial be waived, 
and the case referred back to the original Judge for final disposition. 

Last year we had 51 jury trials out of 323 demands. This was more than five times the number of jury 
trials had the preceding year, and three times more demands for jury trials. 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS 
EITHER PLEAD GUILTY OR WERE FOUND GUILTY 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Committed to County Jail 505 775 1393 

Fined or Jail Time 81 311 400 

Fined with Jail Time 10 28 44 

Sentenced to Time Served 45 64 170 

Suspended Sentence 456 857 1010 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 23 140 287 

Fine or Restitution ... 443 

Probation Granted 219 272 681 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 417 655 600 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 265 552 560 

Probation with Jail Time 193 154 213 

Probation with Jail Time, Restitution or Fine 129 40 58 

Miscellaneous 41 n 16 

Bench Warrants Issued — Failure to Appear 18 14 14 

Traffic School 83 

Alcoholic School (New) 9 

Driver Licenses Suspended 18 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 

THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1961-62 1963-64 

Section 148 — Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 438 612 

Section 270 — Penal Code — Child neglect 264 448 

Section 415 — Penal Code — Affray and Disturbing Peace 360 749 

Section 488— Penal Code— Petty theft 893 1235 

S 



Section 594 — Penal Code — Malicious Mischief 244 303 

Section 647 — Penal Code — Disorderly conduct (7 sections) 

New section. Vagrancy provisions of prior years repealed 1075 1000 

Section 647f — Penal Code — Under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug 1722 

Section 242 — S. F. Police Code — Battery 567 768 

Section 4143A — Business & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypodermic needle or syringe 273 349 

Section 4230 — Business & Prof. Code — Possession of hypnotic drugs, etc. 268 372 

Section 11721 — Health & Safety Code — Narcotic addicts 369 93 

Section 2101 — Unemployment Insurance Code 

False statement or representation or concealment 146 97 

All other sections 2796 2107 






MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

I961-62 I963-64 

Section 10852 — Vehicle Code — Breaking or removing vehicle parts 170 151 

Section 12951 — Vehicle Code — Possession of license 263 471 

Section 14601 — Vehicle Code — Driving without valid license 218 705 

Section 23102 — Vehicle Code — Driving under influence of liquor 405 460 

Other Vehicle sections 1155 2248 

Many misdemeanors involving motor vehicles are listed above under Section 647f Penal Code. (All previ- 
ous arrests for drunk in and about an automobile are now booked under this code section, which were former- 
ly booked under Section 67 of the San Francisco Traffic Code. 

We are continually being called upon more and more to represent people involved in serious motor vehicle 
violations, especially when minors are involved. The judges of the Municipal Court now always call upon the 
Public Defender to represent a minor when he is involved in any serious traffic violation. 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hearings 
in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings to deter- 
mine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior Court. In the 
Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies also conduct interviews 
with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to the Superior Court, to 
assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to prepare for trial. 

There were in excess of 750 people who called at the office of the Public Defender last year for the 
purpose of seeking advice and information concerning criminal and civil matters, which problems were dis- 
cussed with deputies when in the office; otherwise the office personnel, and arrangements made for an 
appointment, etc. 

* * * # * 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY 
CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

1960-61 

Defendants represented in Municipal Court 1945 

Charges filed against defendants in Municipal Court 2381 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Municipal Court 4335 

Of the 2463 defendants, 216 were women, or more than 8%. 

Juvenile and Municipal Court records combined since moving to new Hall of Justice. 



961-62 


1963-64 


2018 


2463 


2465 


413° 


4706 


6443 



j 



DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Defendants 1 leld to Answer 709 975 991 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 

Taken Over By Private Counsel 

Indicted In Grand Jury 

Cej nticil to Superior Court 

Special Appearances Made 

Fugitives Appeared for 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 

Referred to Juvenile Division (Minors) 

Held Mentally 111 — Hospitalized 

( \ 1 titied to Superior Court Under Section 1368, Penal Code 

Miscellaneous Disposition — Bench Warrants — Withdrew — Pending 

Total 1945 2018 2463 



REDUCED CHARGES — 362 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing in the 
Municipal Court to a lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dismissed. This 
prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The ^62 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 113 

Probation or suspended sentence (some with fine or restitution) 235 

Pending and Miscellaneous Disposition 14 



423 


226 


386 


248 


256 


334 


177 


i37 


174 


33 


37 


39 


29 


5i 


21 


62 


54 


69 


188 


176 


362 


2 


13 


9 


8 


8 


25 


16 


7 


37 


50 


78 


16 



362 

FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 
SUPERIOR COURT 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Old Cases 66 21 34 

New Cases (many with priors) 1022 1228 1410 

Total 1088 1249 1444 

Of the 1444 represented, 93 were women, or about 6° 



'%■ 



The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

30 days or less 51.6% 53.8% 52 % 

31 to 60 days 34 % 33.2% 33 % 

61 to 90 days 10 % 9.5% 9.3% 

Over 90 days 4.4% 3.5% 5-7% 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sentenced 
and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the time after trial 
and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. This period of 
time is usually three weeks. 

Most cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant — some 
represented by private counsel; cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving capital crimes and 
cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

10 



1961-62 


1963-6 


973 


991 


37 


39 


136 


174 


82 


206 



NEW CASES 

1960-61 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal Court 709 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 33 

Indicted by Grand Jury 177 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 103 

Total 1022 1228 1410 

DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

1961-62 1963-64 

Defendants plead guilty 652 749 

Defendants found guilty (Many of lesser included offenses) 117 I21 

1961-62 1963-64 

By Jury 30 47 

By Court 87 74 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 72 72 

Defendants dismissed 37 4° 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity 2 4 

Defendants found not guilty 17 3 1 

1961-62 1963-64 

By Jury 3 10 

By Court 14 21 

During the fiscal year there were 8 jury trials which resulted in hung juries. 

During the fiscal year the Public Defender's office made 788 motions for probation in the felony cases 
handled. In 379 cases probation was denied and in 409 cases probation was granted. Probation was granted in 
over 100% more cases in the last fiscal year than in the fiscal year 1961-62. 

1961-62 1963-64 

Mentally ill cases — all jury trials 6 14 

Substituted by Private Counsel (many because of conflict of interest) 90 116 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 22 21 

Certified from Municipal Court under Section 1368, Penal Code 61 88 

Certified from Municipal Court under 5500, W&I Code 7 

Motion to revoke probation (new cases) 44 61 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 6 7 

Motion to expunge or seal record 2 10 

Returned from hospital for sentence (sex psycho) 20 10 

Returned from Narcotic Rehabilitation Center (new) 13 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 3 3 

Withdrew as counsel — conflict of interest or financial reason 11 11 

Miscellaneous and Bench Warrants 8 13 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 7 

Referred to Juvenile Court 4 

Cases closed during year (old and new) 1170 1397 

Cases still pending 79 47 

Total 1249 1444 

11 



During the fiscal year [963-64 our office made the following motions: 

Motions for dismissal under Section 995, Penal Code 82 

Granted $0 Denied 46 Withdrawn 6 

Motions for treatment .is narcotic addict under Section 6451, Penal Code 42 

Admitted for treatment 29 Not eligible for treatment 13 

MURDER CASES 

During the fiscal year, the Public Defender represented 20 defendants charged with murder. They were 
disposed of as follows: 

2 found guilty, second degree. 

1 |>le. id guilty, second degree. 

<S plead guilty to manslaughter. 

1 found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

•; found presently insane under Section 1368 of the Penal Code. 

S transferred to Private Counsel. 

FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 

CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 
PLEAD GUILTY, WERE FOUND GUILTY, OR 

WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1963-64 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 171 

Sentenced to County Jail 328 

Probation or suspended sentence with County Jail time 273 

(Some with fine or restitution.) 

Probation or suspended sentence 155 

(Some with fine or restitution.) 

Committed to Youth Authority 57 

Committed to State Hospitals 62 



Total 1046 

NUMRER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY 

CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1963-1964 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the discretion 
of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been rendered 
imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fell into the following categories: 

1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Section 459 — Penal Code — Burglary 

Section 211 — Penal Code — Robbery 

Health & Safety Code — Narcotics charges 

Section 10851 — Vehicle Code — Theft of vehicle 

Section 470 — Penal Code — Forgery 

Section 487 — Penal Code — Grand Theft 

Section 245 — Penal Code — Assault with deadly weapon 

Assault against police officer 102 

Other charges 53 1 

Total charges 17 20 

12 



278 


285 


335 


252 


i75 


189 


198 


207 


229 


108 


i33 


102 


92 


i35 


108 


86 


80 


124 



APPEALS 

It is the duty of the Public Defender, in any case where a conviction is had, where, in his opinion, any 
appeal to a higher Court will or might reasonably be expected to result in a reversal or modification of the 
judgment of conviction, that such appeal be taken and followed through with all the resources at their com- 
mand. 

Appeals are taken when the Public Defender feels that error has been committed which would entitle his 
client to a new trial or where it is felt that such client has been deprived of his constitutional or statutory 
rights during the course of a criminal proceeding. Last year only six appeals were filed by our office because 
of the lack of help. 

SPECIAL CASES HANDLED BY THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE 

JUVENILE COURT — 

Section 601 et sec W & 1 Code 

In the past the Public Defender has been called upon by the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court to 
represent juveniles before the Court. Representation by the Public Defender has been primarily for the pur- 
pose of facilitating the action of the Court and secondarily for the purpose of presenting in an orderly 
fashion the opposing view in a complex factual situation. Prior to the action of the 1961 legislature the right 
of a minor to representation by counsel was not a matter of right and it was generally conceded that in such 
proceedings representation by counsel was not a matter of procedural due process. However, the 1961 session 
of the state legislature amended the Juvenile Court law to provide for representation by counsel in Juvenile 
Court cases. The new law became effective the 15th of September, 1961, and is included in Chapter 2 of the 
Welfare and Institution Code, Sections 500 to 914. 

Our office in conjunction with the Juvenile Court and with the Court's approval has participated in 
hearings involving juvenile offenders as a pilot study preparatory to the effective operation of the new system. 
Last year we appeared for 85 juveniles at the Juvenile Court. 

The law provides in Section 634: "When it appears to the Court that the minor or his parent or guardian 
desires counsel but is indigent and cannot for that reason employ counsel, the Court may appoint counsel. In 
such a case the Court must appoint counsel for the minor if he is charged with misconduct which would 
constitute a felony if committed by an adult. In any case in which it appears to the Court that there is such 
a conflict of interest between a parent or guardian and child that one attorney could not properly represent 
both, the Court may appoint counsel in addition to counsel already employed by a parent or guardian or 
appointed by the Court to represent the minor or a parent or guardian." 

See also Sections 633, 658, 659, 700, Welfare and Institution Code. 

I INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

In May, i960, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco approved the following 
ordinance for the establishment of an Internship Program in the office of the Public Defender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attorneys. The public defender is hereby authorized 
to institute a system of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys of the City and County 
of San Francisco to serve in the office of the public defender and thereby acquire experience in the 
field of criminal law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and under the supervision of the pub- 
lic defender and permanent members of the office of the public defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this system of internship shall be designated and shall 
serve at the pleasure of the public defender. Each attorney so designated must be qualified to practice 
in all the courts of the state. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of any kind or nature paid to said law students 
or attorneys, nor shall any such person be eligible to be a member of the retirement system of the 
City and County of San Francisco or have any rights thereunder by reason of such service. 
The office has made it a policy that only those attorneys who had two years of actual practice and experi- 
ence would actually take over the defense of any indigent, as provided by the terms of our Charter. 

13 



Fort) students in their third year oi law from Hastings College of the Law (a branch of the University 
<>l California in San Francisco) participated in a joint working program with our office. Each week while in 
session two senior law students arc assigned to observe and work with our deputies during the performance 
oi their duties as < riminal lawyers. They serve directly under the supervision of our deputies and investigator. 
Then horns .ue accounted For and the law school allows them academic credits for this experience. 

During the last fiscal year two law students served in the Public Defender's office during the summer 
vacation, namely, Edwin Baltimore, a third year law student at Roalt Hall in Berkeley, California, and Judith 
1.. Teichman, .1 Michigan law student. 

INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to deal intelligently with defendants and render proper 
uul^ments, all of the facts and circumstances must be known to the deputy so that the case may be fairly 
and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to those of investigators employed in any private law office or 
by the District Attorney's office; namely to locate, interview and secure signed statements from witnesses, in 
addition to making field investigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. In certain cases, it is impos- 
sible, without an investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the deputy can deter- 
mine from the data accumulated — regardless of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused — the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In some cases, discovered evidence has resulted in showing the complete innocence of certain defendants, 
although at first the evidence appeared strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. With careful investiga- 
tion, it is possible to eliminate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a minimum long jury trials. 

During the 1963-64 fiscal year the Investigator for this office was assigned and completed 318 cases for 
investigation; conducted 1,037 personal interviews; served 89 subpoenas to people pertinent to these cases; 
made 49 record searches for information of value to the defendants; and obtained 14 hospital reports and 
records for trial preparation. 

During the fiscal year in performing these services our investigator worked 256 hours overtime, for which 
he did not receive compensation or compensatory time off. 

The attorneys in the handling of criminal cases in our office have worked under a severe handicap with 
only one investigator. It is not possible to properly investigate the many cases requiring investigation handled 
by our office, without the aid and assistance of additional investigation services. Our case load has quadrupled 
since the year 1955-56 with no increase in investigation services, even though continuously requested. 

PUBLIC DEFENDER ACQUIRES PSYCHIATRIC CONSULTANT 

Public Defender Edward T. Mancuso has made arrangements with the Psychiatric Institute at Langley 
Porter Hospital for the services of Dr. Alexander V. Monto to serve one day a week in his office beginning 
the month of October, 1964. 

Dr. Monto will work with the staff of the Public Defender's office as a consultant to them on the psycho- 
logical evaluation of defendants ; since psychological considerations of intent and similar aspects of an act are 
now recognized as important. 

Dr. Monto stated: 

"There is widespread feeling in the field of psychiatry that an adequate psychological evaluation of 
offenders is seldom obtained, due in part to the relative lack of familiarity with such matters among most 
psychiatrists. 

"The experience of learning the legal aspects of and evaluating these offenders in the context of the actual 
functioning of the legal system and specifically within the Public Defender's office, would provide an ideal 
opportunity to gain understanding and facility in dealing with these sorts of issues." 

Dr. Monto received his Bachelor degree in 1950 at the University of Illinois, majoring in psychiatry. He 
served in the U. S. Air Force, Psychiatric Section in the Medical Service for i x / 2 years. He graduated from 
the School of Medicine at Washington University in 1957. 

He has spent five years with the U. S. Public Health Service. In 1962 he began psychiatric training at 
Langley Porter in the Psychiatric Institute. During the last year he participated in the Community Mental 
Health Training Program in which the community and social aspects of psychiatric practices are taught. 

14 



He is a licensed physician of the State of California; however, he is not allowed to engage in practice 
during the period of his training in psychiatry. 

He is presently working under a grant from the National Institution of Mental Health in the further 
study of psychiatry. 

BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1963-64 

Salaries $159,073.00 

Temporary Salaries 367.00 

Contractual Services 1,128.00 

Allowance for use of Investigator's Car 200.00 

Materials and Supplies 850.00 

Law Books and Equipment 600.00 

Expert Witness Fees 550.00 

Fixed Charges — Dues 150.00 



Total $162,918.00 

RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1960-61 1961-62 1963-64 

Municipal & Juvenile Courts — Misdemeanors 4166 6476 9252 

Felonies 1945 2018 2463 

Superior Court 1088 1249 1444 



TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 7199 9743 13159 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court — Misdemeanors 

Felonies 

Superior Court 



7168 


"435 


15608 


4335 


4722 


6443 


5096 


5552 


6753 



TOTAL APPEARANCES 17599 21709 28804 

ESTIMATED COST, COURT APPEARANCES ONLY: 

Per defendant (approximately) $21.15 $15.68 $12.40 

Per appearance (approximately) 8.65 7.01 5.65 

The cost per appearance does not take into consideration any of the interviews and conferences held in 
the office of the Public Defender such as the 1102 applications that were filed for our services; the 750 or more 
office interviews and conferences with people calling at our office; the appearances made by our deputies 
throughout the year in the county jail, the women's prison and the city prison to discuss the cases with the 
clients and conduct interviews. 



15 



Printing paid for by Edward T. Mancuso, 
Public Defender, and his Staff 



o6 oowe nts 



ANNUAL REPORT 



si* 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 



JULY 1, 1964 TO JUNE 30, 1965 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 




SCALES OF JUSTICE 
Justice— The Highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

'Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is financially 
unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to 
any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



FOREWORD 

Our society's great stress on individual rights 
and equal justice For all means nothing unless there 
is competent representation to safeguard these 
rights. ( > • 1 1 system ol justice under law recognizes 
that counsel for the defense is a vital part or the 
machinery <>l justice. 

There can be no equality before the law in a 
criminal proceeding where an experienced and 
skillful prosecuting attorney, hacked by the power 
oi the state and having at his command the entire 
resources of the police' for investigation, is 
matched against a poor and often friendless de- 
fendant, confined in jail, unable to understand 
even the simplest legal implications of the charges 
against him, and without the help of competent 
counsel is powerless to marshal any facts to con- 
trovert them. 

JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legis- 
lation in 1921, paving the way for the establish- 
ment of the Public Defender system in the State 
of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San 
Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it 
w as not until February, 1955, that this office was 
able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, 
as well as in felony cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now 
operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which was 
adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million 
people, which includes those from the Peninsula 
and the Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and 
responsibility is to see that each defendant is 
granted a fair and impartial trial; that all of his 
rights are preserved; that the innocent are not 
found guilty; that every possible defense is pre- 
sented; that investigation is made to ascertain if 
any mitigating circumstances exist; and, gener- 
ally, to see that each defendant receives every 
protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, 
under our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony 
cases at the preliminary hearings. We thus have 
the opportunity of investigating the facts in each 
case and of examining the testimony of the wit- 
nesses, and studying the transcript after the de- 
fendant has been held to answer to the Superior 
Court. 

Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dis- 
missals of the guilty. We endeavor to expedite 



trials and oppose unnecessary delays. To permit a 
case to drag through the criminal courts works a 
great hardship upon the accused, especially when 
the defendants we represent are unable to post 
bail and are in custody pending the disposition of 
their cases. Since almost all of our clients are un- 
able to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten the time 
between the arrest of the accused and the disposi- 
tion of his case. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be cer- 
tain that none but those eligible for legal service 
by the Public Defender's office are represented. 
Affidavits regarding financial inability to employ 
private counsel are required of all defendants in 
felony cases, in addition to the fact that he is ques- 
tioned as to family responsibility and other pos- 
sible assets. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for 
persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil 
rights by filing certificates of rehabilitation when 
released from the State prison, as set forth in Sec- 
tion 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

WHY WE NEED A 

PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 

A social democracy, such as ours, is zealous in 
the preservation of individual freedoms; to the ex- 
tent that such freedoms are not inconsistent with 
maintenance of the health, welfare and morals of 
the group of which the individual is a part. 

Our Federal and State constitutions protect each 
and every citizen from oppression, in the exercise 
of his basic concerns. The protective influences of 
our democratic way of fife find expression in the 
elaborate and extensive fabric of law which char- 
acterizes the administration of justice in situations 
relating to crime, to wit: 



U.S. 

Constitution 

Provisions 



No person shall be held to 
answer for a capital or other in- 
famous crime unless on a present- 
ment or indictment of a grand 
jury. . . . Nor shall any person be 
subject for the same offense to be 
twice put in jeopardy . . . nor shall he be compelled 
in any criminal case to be a witness against him- 
self— 5th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 
enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an 
impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with 
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process 
for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the 
assistance of counsel for his defense.— 6th Amend- 
ment, U. S. Constitution. 

. . . Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, 
liberty or property without due process of law; nor 



California 

Constitution 

& General 

Laws 




deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the law.— 14th Amendment, U. S. 
Constitution. 

The provisions of the Califor- 
nia Constitution and the General 
Laws of the State of California, 
as well as the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco, re- 
lating to the protection afforded 
those accused of crime, are not 
inconsistent with the provisions of the United 
States Constitution. 

The prosaic pronouncements of our Constitu- 
tions and Laws indicate nothing more than a pro- 
found declaration of policy on the vital subject of 
individual rights; if these utter- 
ances are to become dynamic, 
living forces in our national life, 
they will become so only because 
of the impetus given them by 
dedicated men and women. 
It is the preservation of these rights and the 
universal application of these protections that the 
Public Defender's office of San Francisco provides, 
under the leadership of Edward T. Mancuso, the 
Public Defender, and the men and women of his 
staff who have dedicated themselves to their work. 
The San Francisco Public Defender's office offers 
the assurance that each person accused of crime, 
irrespective of his station in life, shall receive those 
legal protections to which he is entitled under the 
law, no more and certainly no less. 

RECENT APPELLATE DECISIONS 

Recent decision of the Federal and State Appel- 
late Courts, in particular the United States Su- 
preme Court, are making the constitutional right 
to counsel real and effective in both Federal and 
State Courts. The effect of these decisions is that 
the constitutional right to counsel is present at 
every critical stage of the proceeding and is avail- 
able to the indigent as well as those financially able 
to afford counsel. The following are some recent 
landmark cases which indicate that the constitu- 
tional right is broad enough to require counsel vir- 
tually at every stage of criminal proceedings: 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 
(right to counsel in both capital and noncapital 
cases is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the 
Constitution of the United States in both Federal 
and State jurisdictions— is being extended to in- 
clude misdemeanors as well as felonies ) . 

Hamilton v. Alabama (1961) 368 U.S. 52 (when 
accused appears for arraignment). 

White v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 59 (at pre- 
liminary hearings). 




Douglas v. California (1963) 372 U.S. 353 (at 
least on first appeal on merits ) . 

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 (treats 
where an accused is taken into custody and inter- 
rogated by the police and the focus shifts from a 
general inquiry into an accusatory process). 

People v. Dorado (1965) 42 Cal. Repr. 169, cer- 
tiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court, 33 USL 
Week 3389 ( holds in effect that when police fail to 
advise the accused of his absolute right to remain 
silent or the right to consult with counsel, his sub- 
sequent confession would be inadmissible even 
though he had not made a formal request for coun- 
sel. The court stated "the constitutional right (to 
counsel) does not arise from the request for coun- 
sel but from the advent of the accusatory stage 
itself"). 

Charnley v. Cochran (1962) 360 U.S. 506 
(waiver of counsel) (a waiver must be compe- 
tently done and a silent record will not amount to 
a waiver, nor will it raise the presumption of 
waiver). 

The office of the Public De- 
fender of the City and County of 
San Francisco has the responsi- 
bility of assuring the underpriv- 
ileged that they, as well as the 
privileged, shall be ARRESTED 
AND DETAINED only upon good cause shown; 
that they shall not be prosecuted TWICE FOR 
THE SAME OFFENSE or REQUIRED TO RE 
WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES, that they 
SHALL ENJOY A SPEEDY AND PURLIC 
TRIAL RY A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY; 
that their case shall be thoroughly investigated and 
witnesses required to attend in their behalf; and 
that they are REPRESENTED RY COMPETENT 
COUNSEL during all stages of the proceeding and 
ACCORDED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PRO- 
CEEDING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

For the preservation of these 
freedoms thousands of Ameri- 
cans have paid with their lives; 
however, the citizens of the City 
and County of San Francisco are 
required to pay much less, in ef- 
fect a little more than ONE CENT IN THE TAX 
RATE FOR THE COST OF OPERATING THE 
PURLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. If it were 
properly staffed, it would not cost two cents in 
the tax rate. 

Is this too much money to protect the individual 
rights, liberty and welfare of our citizens who are 
indigent and cannot afford to employ their own 
counsel, which right is set forth in the 5th Amend- 
ment, the 6th Amendment and the 14th Amend- 
ment of the U.S. Constitution; in the General Laws 



Cost 

to 

Taxpayer 



ol tlic State ol California; in the Constitution of 
the State >>l California; and in the Charter of the 
Cit) and Count) <>l San Francisco? 

BAIL AND O.R. 

Representation of persons accused of crime who 
are on bail or released on their own recognizance 
O.R. . has imposed a particular burden on our 
office. 

Tins problem stems from a recent two-fold de- 
velopment. first: Bail bonds firms have become 
more liberal in accepting payment of bail premium 
on the installment plan, which results in more per- 
sons who are in custody being released on bail. 
Many of these are, in tact, indigent and usually 
have borrowed the down payment from relatives 
am! friends. 

Secondly: The creation of the San Francisco 
O.K. project by the San Francisco Bar Association. 
This project has been approved as a pilot program 
by the federal Government for Federal funds 
under the Office of Economic Opportunity which 
will assign 12 vista volunteers to work with the proj- 
ect. The project operates in the following manner: 
Personnel interview persons in custody, the data 
obtained is checked and, depending on various 
Factors, a recommendation is made to a judge to 
release the person on his own recognizance (which 



means he is released without having to put up any 
bail). To date, the accomplishments have been 
outstanding. The project is under the able super- 
vision of its director, Edwin Baltimore, who served 
as an intern in our office during the summer of 
1964, and who has since been admitted to the 
practice of law in California. 

Most all those released from custody seek the 
services of the Public Defender. We have prepared 
an application for these people to fill out when 
they call at our office in order to determine their 
indigency and eligibility for our services. Those 
who are found to have funds for the employment 
of private counsel are referred on a rotation basis 
to three attorneys in San Francisco, selected from 
a panel of attorneys who have expressed their in- 
terest in handling criminal cases for a moderate 
fee. 

Checking these applications has become an ex- 
treme problem in our office. Each applicant has to 
be questioned and interviewed by an attorney. The 
magnitude of this problem is exemplified by the 
fact that during the period covered by this report 
a total of 1978 applications were made to our office 
and the number is constantly increasing. These ap- 
plicants are not listed in this report as persons 
represented other than as a defendant if we repre- 
sent them. 



PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1965 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

per month 

Public Defender $ 2000 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 1733 

3 Principal Attorneys, Criminal 1260-1533 

5 Senior Attorneys, Criminal 1037-1260 

1 Trial Attorney, Criminal 854-1037 

1 Investigator 686-834 

1 Confidential Secretary— with legal training 721 

1 Legal Stenographer 432-525 

1 General Clerk-Stenographer 421-513 

1 General Clerk-Typist 382-465 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 
Our offices are located at the new Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco 94103, California; 
telephone KLondike 3-1671. 

MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED Our concept of justice requires that a person 

IN MUNICIPAL COURT charged with the commission of a misdemeanor, 

Experience has shown that there is a greater pos- who is unable to employ counsel, has the same 

sibility of a miscarriage of justice at the misde- right to expect and receive a fair trial which in- 

meanor level than in situations involving the com- eludes adequate representation and presentation 

mission of a felony. This is due, in part, to the fact of his defense, as does the person who is suffici- 

that before a trial and conviction or acquittal in a ently affluent to employ counsel of his own choos- 

felony case there must have been a preliminary mg or who has counsel provided for him because 

screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or he is charged with a more serious offense. Any 

a Committing magistrate. other position would most certainly be at odds 

4 



with our traditional ideas of justice and would 
most assuredly be a denial of due process. 

We are finding that an increasing number of so- 
called minor offenses or misdemeanors are continu- 
ally presenting more complex issues and carrying 
more severe penalties; some penalties, in their 
practical implications, are considerably more se- 
vere than penalties in some felony cases. Serious, 
surprising and unanticipated results often follow 
when an uninformed and inexperienced person 
pleads guilty to a minor offense either in order to 
save time or to win an expected suspension of sen- 
tence. There is no criteria that can be utilized to 
measure these circumstances. In the main the 
problem is one that is essentially parochial in na- 
ture and must be resolved on the basis of each 
community's need. In larger communities there is 



an ever pressing need for representation in all 
criminal proceedings, although there are no avail- 
able statistics by which to measure the volume of 
cases. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as mis- 
demeanors and carry severe penalties, our experi- 
ence has convinced us that the constant presence 
in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public De- 
fender greatly decreases the possibility of any mis- 
carriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and 
equitable disposition of many cases. 

Today the judges of the Municipal Court feel 
that it is absolutely necessary that a Public De- 
fender be available at all times while the court is 
in session to assist in the expediting of the court 
calendar and to be available for appointment when 
necessary. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Number of defendants represented 6476 9252 11862 

Charges filed against defendants 10268 13899 18281 

Number of appearances made by deputies 11435 15608 22172 

Of the defendants, 1693 were women, or more than 14%. 



DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Defendants plead guilty 1675 2944 2949 

Defendants found guilty 2198 2922 3894 

Defendants dismissed or discharged* 1030 1442 2088 

Defendants found not guilty 361 609 605 

Taken over by Private Counsel 453 386 820 

Special Appearance ... 235 200 

Motions to Revoke Probation-New: Revoked 191, Denied 117. 100 273 308 

Certified to Juvenile Court— Minors 18 17 28 

Certified to Superior Court under Section 1368 Penal Code ...... 54 62 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 5 13 23 

Motions to Expunge Records Under 1203.4 Penal Code 152 42 86 

Motions to Seal Records Under 1203.45 Penal Code ... 52 

Mentally Ill-Bedside Hearings Committed 57 42 55 94 

Warrants Issued 56 109 187 

Made Bail-Public Defender Withdrew 213 23 56 

Cases still pending 32 55 312 

Miscellaneous— Bail Forfeited, etc 41 15 98 

"Note 1: Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases where, 
after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and therefore dis- 
missed the charges filed against him. In over 22% of the cases where charges were filed against defendants, the 
defendants were dismissed or found not guilty. 

UNIT OF COUNTING or charges. A defendant is counted as convicted 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is when there is a conviction on any one of a group 

the defendant, rather than the case or charge. If of cases or charges, 
several cases on one individual are prosecuted dur- 

ing an overlapping time period, they are combined. MISDEMEANOR JURY CASES 
When there are multiple cases or charges, a de- 
fendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only When a jury trial is demanded, the case is re- 
if there are dismissals or acquittals on all such cases ferred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thor- 



ougli discussion of the case with the Deput) Public 
Defender appointed to represent said client, there 
is almost always a request by tin* client who had 
previousl) demanded a jury trial that the demand 



lor the jury trial be waived, and the case referred 
back to the original judge for final disposition. 

Last year we had 87 jury trials out of 507 de- 
mands. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY, 

WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Committed to ( lounty Jail 775 1393 H73 

( lommitted to ( !ount) Jail— One Day Suspended" ... ... 1,53 

Fined or Jail Time 311 400 541 

Fined w itli Jail Time 28 44 97 

Sentenced to Time Served 64 170 322 

Suspended Sentence 857 1010 1006 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 140 287 103 

Fine or Restitution ... 443 579 

Probation Granted 272 681 250 

Probation (wanted with Suspended Sentence 655 600 2032 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 552 560 107 

Probation with Jail Time 154 213 224 

Probation with Jail Time, Restitution or Fine 40 58 45 

Miscellaneous 11 16 8 

bench Warrants Issued— Failure to Appear— Final Disposition. 14 14 187 

Traffic School 83 200 

Alcoholic School ( New) ... 9 54 

Driver Licenses Suspended ... 18 46 

California Youth Authority ... ... 5 

'When the court imposes a county jail sentence with one day suspended, he thereby maintains control of the 
sentence imposed upon the defendant which can be modified any time thereafter within his discretion to either 
time served or a lesser jail time than originally imposed. 

Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 



THE MAIN CHARGES 
DEFENDER WERE: 



FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS 



1961-62 



Section 148— Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 438 

Section 270— Penal Code— Child neglect— Failure to provide .... 264 

Section 415— Penal Code— Affray and Disturbing Peace 360 

Section 488-Penal Code-Petty theft 893 

Section 594— Penal Code— Malicious Mischief 244 

Section 647— Penal Code— Disorderly conduct ( 7 sections ) 

New section. Vagrancy provisions of prior years repealed . . 1075 
Section 647f— Penal Code— Counted separately 

Under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug 

Section 242— Penal Code— Rattery 567 

Section 4143A— Rusiness & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypodermic needle or syringe 273 

Section 4230— Rusiness & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypnotic or dangerous drugs, etc 268 

Section 11721-Health & Safety Code-Narcotic addicts 369 

Section 2101— Unemployment Insurance Code 

False statement or representation or concealment 146 

All other sections 2796 



HANDLED RY 


THE 


PURLIC 


1963-64 




1964-65 


612 




654 


448 




471 


749 




818 


1235 




1315 


303 




390 



1000 

1722 
768 

349 

372 
93 

97 
2107 



1548 

1979 
942 

394 

442 
144 

131 
2818 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 
Section 10852— Vehicle Code (Tampering ) 

Breaking or removing vehicle parts 170 151 172 

Section 12951-Vehicle Code-Possession of license 263 471 777 

Section 14601-Vehicle Code-Driving without valid license ... 218 705 1247 

Section 23102— Vehicle Code— Driving under influence of liquor 405 460 565 

Other Vehicle sections 1155 2248 3474 

Many misdemeanors involving motor vehicles are listed above under Section 647f Penal Code. (All 
previous arrests for drunk in and about an automobile are now booked under this code section, which were 
formerly booked under Section 67 of the San Francisco Traffic Code. 

We are continually being called upon more and more to represent people involved in serious motor 
vehicle violations, especially when minors are involved. The judges of the Municipal Court now always 
call upon the Public Defender to represent a minor when he is involved in any serious traffic violation. 

The deputies assigned to misdemeanor matters in the Municipal Court also handle preliminary hear- 
ings in felony cases. This includes arraignments and pleas before the Municipal Court judges, and hearings 
to determine whether said defendants should be held to answer on said felony charges in the Superior 
Court. In the Municipal Court there usually are two or more appearances on each felony. Deputies endeavor 
to conduct interviews with the defendants in the County Jail, immediately after they are held to answer to 
the Superior Court, to assist in their defense and determine whether an investigation is necessary to pre- 
pare for trial. 

There were in excess of 850 people who called at the office of the Public Defender last year for the 
purpose of seeking advice and information concerning criminal and civil matters, which problems were 
discussed with deputies when in the office; otherwise the office personnel, and arrangements made for an 
appointment, etc. These are not listend in this report as persons represented. 

# e o o * 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

1961-62 

Defendants represented in Municipal Court 2018 

Charges filed against defendants in Municipal Court ......... 2465 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Municipal Court . 4706 

Of the 2697 defendants, 236 were women, or more than 8%. 



63-64 


1964-6 


2463 


2697 


4130 


6244 


6443 


7630 



DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1961-62 

Defendants Held to Answer 975 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 226 

Taken Over by Private Counsel 256 

Indicted by Grand Jury 137 

Certified to Superior Court 37 

Special Appearances Made 51 

Fugitives Appeared for 54 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 176 

Referred to Juvenile Division ( Minors ) 13 

Held Mentally 111— Hospitalized 8 

Certified to Superior Court Under Section 1368, Penal Code ... 7 

Miscellaneous Disposition— Bench Warrants— Withdrew 78 

Pending Cases 

Total 2018 



1963-64 


1964-6E 


991 


1126 


386 


373 


334 


350 


174 


159 


39 


17 


21 


39 


69 


66 


362 


388 


9 


17 


25 


24 


37 


48 


16 


11 




79 



2463 



269' 



REDUCED CHARGES — 388 DEFENDANTS 
Hie usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing 
in the Municipal Court to a Lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony charge is dis- 
missed. This prevents a holding to (he Superior Court. 

The 388 defendants thai plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 124 

Count) Jail with Probation 46 

County Jail— One day suspended 21 

Probation or suspended sentence 

(some with fine or restitution) 193 

\ 1 iscellaneous 4 

t> « « # » 

FELONY CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Old Cases 21 34 47 

New ( lases (331 with priors) 1228 1410 1611 

Total 1249 1444 1658 

Of the 1658 represented, 146 were women, or more than 8%. 

The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

30 days or less 53.8% 52 % 57.8% 

31 to 60 days 33.2% 33 % 27.6% 

61 to 90 days 9.5% 9.3% 8.8% 

Over 90 days 3.5% 5.7% 5.8% 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sen- 
tenced and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the 
time after trial and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. 
This period of time is usually three weeks. 

Most cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant- 
some represented by private counsel; cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving capital 
crimes and cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

NEW CASES 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal Court . . 973 991 1126 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 37 39 67 

Indicted by Grand Jury 136 174 159 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court . 82 206 259 

Total 1228 1410 1611 



.3-64 


1964-65 


749 


745 


121 


142 



72 


72 


94 


37 


40 


108 


2 


4 


4 


17 


31 


23 



DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

1961-62 

Defendants plead guilty 652 

Defendants found guilty (Many of lesser included offenses) . . . 117 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

By Jury 30 47 71 

By Court 87 74 71 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 

Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity 

Defendants found not guilty 

1931-62 1963-64 1964-65 

By Jury 3 10 16 

By Court 14 21 7 

During the fiscal year the Public Defender's office made 750 motions for probation in the felony cases 
handled. In 371 cases, probation was granted; in 379 cases probation was denied. 
During the fiscal year there were: 

14 jury trials which resulted in hung juries; 

48 motions made for new trials; 
24 motions made to reduce bail; 

9 motions made to disqualify the judge; 

49 motions made to revoke probation as part of the case; 
63 petitions for rehabilitation filed; 

4 motions made to expunge records under Section 1772 W & I Code; 
93 defendants were represented at the juvenile court (84 boys, 9 girls). 

In all, the Public Defender made approximately 114 appearances before the juvenile court. 



Mentally ill cases— all jury trials 

Substituted by Private Counsel (many because of 

conflict of interest) 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 

Certified from Municipal Court under Section 1368, Penal Code 

Certified from Municipal Court under 5500, W&I Code 

Motion to revoke probation ( new cases ) 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 

Motion to expunge or seal record 

Returned from hospital for sentence ( sex psycho ) 

Returned from Narcotic Rehabilitation Center 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 

Withdrew as counsel— conflict of interest or financial reason . . . 

Miscellaneous and Bench Warrants 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 

Referred to Juvenile Court 

Cases closed during year ( old and new) 1170 

Cases still pending 



1961-62 


196.3-64 


1964-65 


6 


14 


7 


90 


116 


1.30 


22 


21 


18 


61 


88 


96 




7 


12 


44 


61 


103 


6 


7 


19 


2 


10 


9 


20 


10 


33 




13 


8 


3 


3 


3 


11 


11 


4 


8 


13 


19 




7 


10 




4 


1 


1170 


1397 


1588 


79 


47 


70 



Total 



1249 



1444 



1658 



During the fiscal year 1964-65 our office made the following motions : 

Motions for dismissal under Section 995, Penal Code 209 

Granted 55 Denied 146 Withdrawn 8 

Motions for treatment as narcotic addict under Section 6451, Penal Code 39 

Admitted for treatment 35 Not eligible for treatment 4 



9 



MURDER CASES 

During the fiscal year, the Public Defender represented 28 defendants charged with murder. They 
were disposed of as Follows: There were no death penalties in our murder cases last year. 

2 found guilty, first degree; 

3 plead guilty, first degree; 

1 found guilty, second degree; 

I plead guilty, second degree; 

1 plead guilt>', manslaughter; 

1 found not guilty by reason of insanity; 

3 found presently insane under Section 1368 of the Penal Code; 

2 dismissed; 

4 transferred to private counsel; 

2 special appearances made by the Public Defender; 
2 eases now pending. 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 
PLEAD GUILTY, WERE FOUND GUILTY, OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 

Sentenced to County Jail 

Probation or suspended sentence with County Jail time 

( Some with fine or restitution. ) 
Probation or suspended sentence 

( Some with fine or restitution. ) 

Committed to Youth Authority 

( Committed to State Hospitals 

Total 1046 1049 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 
SUPERIOR COURT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1964-1965 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the dis- 
cretion of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been 
rendered imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fell into the following categories : 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Section 459— Penal Code— Burglary 285 

Section 211— Penal Code— Robbery 175 

Health & Safety Code— Narcotics charges 207 

Section 10851-Vehicle Code-Theft of vehicle 133 

Section 470— Penal Code— Forgery 135 

Section 487-Penal Code-Grand Theft 80 

Section 245— Penal Code— Assault with deadly weapon 

Assault against police officer 

Other charges 

Total charges 1720 2287 



10 



335 


397 


189 


313 


229 


301 


102 


126 


108 


117 


124 


134 


102 


139 


531 


760 



)63-64 


1964-65 


171 


209 


328 


294 


273 


245 


155 


174 


57 


67 


62 


60 



APPEALS 

It is the duty of the Public Defender, and he 
shall prosecute all appeals to a higher court or 
courts of any person who has been convicted, 
where, in his opinion, the appeal will or might 
reasonably be expected to result in the reversal or 
modification of the judgment of conviction. ( Gov. 
Code Section 27706. ) 

Although some appeals are taken, the lack of 
personnel in our office precludes our handling 
many appeals that we would like to pursue. In 
these situations, or upon the request of a defend- 
ant, our office files written notice of appeal and re- 
quest for transcripts on behalf of the defendant in 
order to protect his constitutional and statutory 
rights. The appropriate Appellate Court then as- 
signs appointed counsel to represent the indigent 
defendant on appeal. 

JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS 

Following recommendations made by the Spe- 
cial Study Commission on Juvenile Justice created 
by the Governor in 1957, the 1961 Legislature en- 
acted the new and revised Juvenile Court Law 
contained in the Welfare and Institutions Code 
( Section 500 et seq. ) . Among the many problems 
which the Commission felt impeded the adminis- 
tration of Juvenile Justice in California was quote : 
"Basic legal rights are neither being uniformly nor 
adequately protected under present Juvenile Court 
Provisions and Procedures." (Special Study Com- 
mission report, page 12, 1960.) 

Recognizing the need for the right to counsel in 
juvenile matters, the Commission in its recommen- 
dations stated quote: "The Commission believes 
that the right to be represented by counsel is a 
necessary element of due process in every legal 
proceeding, civil, juvenile, or criminal. Since the 
Juvenile Court hearing constitutes a legal proceed- 
ing that may drastically affect the status of both 
the child and the parent-child relationship, the 
right to counsel in this proceeding should be guar- 
anteed. . . . 

"In our opinion, all judges should be required to 
inform the minor and his parents of this right as a 
routine part of the Juvenile Court procedure. . . . 

"To insure that all persons who desire counsel 
will have an opportunity to be represented, the 
Commission recommends that court-appointed 
counsel be provided to indigent parties upon then- 
request. In addition, in the event there is a con- 
flict of interest between the parents and the minor, 
the Court should be empowered to appoint addi- 
tional counsel." ( Special Study Commission report, 
page 26, 1960.) 



This recommendation was adopted by the Legis- 
lature in its enactment of the new Juvenile Court 
Law in 1961 and is contained in Section 634 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code which reads as fol- 
lows: quote: "When it appears to the Court that 
the minor or his parent or guardian desires counsel 
but is indigent and cannot for that reason employ 
counsel, the Court may appoint counsel. In such 
a case the Court may oppoint counsel for the minor 
if he is charged with misconduct which would con- 
stitute a felony if committed by an adult. In any 
case in which it appears to the Court that there is 
such a conflict of interest between a parent or 
guardian and child that one attorney could not 
properly represent both, the Court may appoint 
counsel in addition to counsel already employed 
by a parent or guardian or appointed by the Court 
to represent the minor or a parent or guardian." 

Pursuant to this mandate, our office represented 
93 juveniles during the period covered by this re- 
port. ( See also Sections 633, 658, 659, 700 of the 
Welfare and Institution Code. ) 



INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

In May, 1960, the Board of Supervisors of the 
City and County of San Francisco approved the 
following ordinance for the establishment of an 
Internship Program in the office of the Public De- 
fender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attor- 
neys. The Public Defender is hereby authorized to 
institute a system of internship for duly qualified law 
students and attorneys of the City and County of San 
Francisco to serve in the office of the Public Defender 
and thereby acquire experience in the field of criminal 
law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and un- 
der the supervision of the Public Defender and perma- 
nant members of the office of the Public Defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this sys- 
tem of internship shall be designated and shall serve 
at the pleasure of the Public Defender. Each attorney 
so designated must be qualified to practice in all the 
Courts of the State. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of 
any kind or nature paid to said law students or attor- 
neys, nor shall any such person be eligible to be a. 
member of the retirement system of the City and 
County of San Francisco or have any rights thereunder 
by reason of such service. 

Twenty-seven students in their third year of law 
from Hastings College of the Law (a branch of 
the University of California in San Francisco ) par- 
ticipated in a joint working program with our of- 
fice. Each week while in session two senior law 
students are assigned to observe and work with our 
deputies during the performance of their duties as 
criminal lawyers. They serve directly under the 
supervision of our deputies and investigator. Their 



11 



hours .!!<• accounted for and the law school allows 
tin-in academic credits for this experience. 

During the last fiscal year two law graduates 
served in the Public Defender's office during the 
siiiiiinci vacation, namely, Antoinette Penley from 
Florida and Armando Rodriquez from Hastings 
( lollege ol the Law. 

Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro Loan Attorney 
To Public Defender's Office 

During the latter part of 1964 and in the first 
month of 1965. Michael J. Keady engaged in pri- 
vate practice served as an attorney in our office 
while on a leave of absence from his law firm of 
Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro with whom he is 
associated, i Said firm paid his salary while he was 
sen ing in our office.) 

During this period he was exposed to the in- 
ternal operation of the Public Defender's office, 
including the resolution of such administrative 
matters as the determination of whether or not an 
individual accused qualified for the assistance of 
the Public Defender. 

But by far the greater proportion of his time was 
spent in court. These court appearances com- 
menced in the Municipal Court and progressed 
there through the arraignment, motion, plea, and 
trial stages. 

After this initial familiarization, his efforts were 
directed towards representation of those accused 
of felonies. The first step in this, of course, was 
appearing for the defense at preliminary hearings 
in the Municipal Court. Thereafter, if the defend- 
ant was held to answer to the information in the 
Superior Court or had previously been held to 
answer to an indictment by the Grand Jury, he 
argued whatever motions were appropriate in the 
Superior Court and, finally, in the absence of any 
other disposition, tried the case to its conclusion. 

Concerning this experience, Michael J. Keady 
had this to say: 

"The opportunity made available to serve in 
your office was an opportunity without present 
peer that should be taken advantage of by other 
law firms in San Francisco who wish to contribute 
to the administration of criminal justice while at 
the same time obtaining concentrated trial experi- 
ence for those of its members who actually partici- 
pate therein." 

Thank you, Michael J. Keady, and the firm of 
Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro. 

Another testimony as to the value of our intern- 
ship program is demonstrated by the following 
letter received from a law graduate who served 
with our office in the year 1963-64: 



SAN FRANCISCO O.R. PROJECT 

Hall of Justice, Room 221 
Phone: 552-2202 

June 23, 1965 
Mr. Edward T. Mancuso 
Public Defender 
Hall of Justice 
City and County of San Francisco 

Dear Mr. Mancuso: 

Just a line to let you know that I have successfully passed 
the bar examination and that I am currently investigating the 
possibility of becoming associated with a public defender's office 
in the surrounding area. 

As you know, when I started my period of internship with 
you in the summer of 1964, it was my intention to return to 
teaching upon completion of my legal education. That summer, 
however, lead to a complete disruption of my life and intentions. 

It was in your office that I became completely sold on the 
public defender's system and determined to devote my entire 
legal career to the kind of service I saw being rendered by your 
office. 

At this time I would like to again express my deep apprecia- 
tion for the opportunity afforded me in what I consider to be 
one of the most valuable experiences during my law school 
career. 

Sincerely, 

SAN FRANCISCO O.R. PROJECT 

E. R. Raltimore, Director 

ERR/cjd 



INVESTIGATOR 

It is obvious that if the court and the jury are to 
deal intelligently with defendants and render 
proper judgments, all of the facts and circum- 
stances must be known to the deputy so that the 
case may be fairly and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigator's duties are comparable to 
those of investigators employed in any private law 
office or by the District Attorney's office; namely 
to locate, interview and secure signed statements 
from witnesses, in addition to making field investi- 
gations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. 
In certain cases, it is impossible, without an in- 
vestigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, 
upon investigation, the deputy can determine from 
the data accumulated— regardless of whether the 
information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused— the guilty or innocence of the defendant, 
as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In some cases, discovered evidence has resulted 
in showing the complete innocence of certain de- 
fendants, although at first the evidence appeared 
strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. 
With careful investigation, it is possible to elimi- 
nate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a 
minimum long jury trials. 

During the 1964-65 fiscal year the Investigator 
for this office was assigned and completed 308 
cases for investigation; conducted 1057 personal 
interviews; served 144 subpoenas to peoj)le perti- 
nent to these cases; made 99 record searches for 



12 






information of value to the defendants; and ob- Defender's office as a consultant to them on the 

tained 21 hospital reports and records for trial psychological evaluation of defendants; since psy- 

preparation; personally testified for the defense in chological considerations of intent and similar as- 

12 of the assigned cases. pects of an act are now recognized as important. 

In addition to the assigned cases, the Investi- In looking forward to working with our office 

gator completed 11 Special Investigations as a Dr. Monto stated: 

courtesy, for other Counties. (Alameda; Los An- "There is widespread feeling in the field of psy- 

geles; Stockton, etc.). chiatry that an adequate psychological evaluation 

During the fiscal year in performing these serv- Q f offenders is seldom obtained, due in part to the 

ices the Investigator worked 267 hours overtime in relative lack of familiarity with such matters 

order to complete the assignments. among most psychiatrists. 

INVESTIPATION "The experience of learning the legal aspects of 

and evaluating these offenders in the context of 

Investigation is a major factor in the defense of the actual f unct ioning of the legal system and 
an accused. Appellate decisions have stressed the specifically within the Public Defender's office, 
need for investigative services if the accused is to would provi d e an ideal opportunity to gain under- 
lie properly represented. Tire Ford Foundation has standing and facility in dealing with these sorts 
made funds available to assist and provide needed £ i ssues " 

investigative services in various areas. Newly es- ^ . ^ ,, , . j , . ^ . , j 

. i_i. i i i i n i i- t-v r j m I ms Y ear Dr. Monto completed his third and 

tablishecl and proposed Public Defender offices n i r j *. • • • j_ *-■ 

, • i ,i • tit - t t r final year of post-graduate training in the Corn- 

have recognized this need and have provided tor ./ ,, . , TT ,,, „ . . ° r L , 

j i r • . i munity Mental Health I raining Program of the 

an increased number of investigators to properly r / r> r ..-*. tt i*. j -*i n 

l a I.T. ie Tir i. ..■ i j Langley Porter Institute. He consulted with the 
start the office. We have continuously made re- „ , ?l *U r j 1 1 r t i i 
r j j... ,. .. .. l^.i Public Defender weekly tor the past year regard- 
quests tor additional investigative personnel to the . iri i L ^ j-i- • 
?* jmti jro ■ ro t- m 8 defendants whose mental condition was m 
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors of San Jbran- ° .. mf...***.- i i 

. J TT j ]-,.• i • L - i question. I his is the first time such a service has 

Cisco. However, no additional investigators have , ., , , . r» 1 1> tn r i » m 

, j \ ,^ ^.,1 L . been available in a Public Defender s office, 

been granted. As a result we are still operating _ . , , , . n r i 

,-.i^i n ■ «,•-„*„ Dr. Monto evaluated over forty defendants, a 

with only one investigator. . . . r i i • i \ 

The attorneys in the handling of criminal cases number of whom were found to be insane and sub- 
in our office have worked under a severe handicap S T ! qi l? tly certified. While providing this service, 
with only one investigator. It is not possible to Dr Monto feels he has gained valuable experience 
properly investigate the many cases requiring in- in fore ™ 1C P s yc hiatl T and knowledge of the opera- 
vestigation handled by our office, without the aid tion of the le § al s y stem - 
and assistance of additional investigation services. In leaving our office he said: 
Our case load is more than five times larger than it " l believe that if more psychiatrists had the op- 
was in the year 1955-56 when our one investigator portunity to work with these problems in a similar 
was approved. setting, there would be greater understanding be- 
tween the legal and psychiatric professions, and 
PUBLIC DEFENDER ACQUIRES progress in developing better ways to deal with the 
PSYCHIATRIC CONSULTANT difficult social problems with which both profes- 

Public Defender Edward T. Mancuso made ar- si ons are concerned." 
rangements with the Psychiatric Institute at Lang- The Psychiatric Institute at Langley Porter Hos- 

ley Porter Hosiptal for the services of Dr. Alexan- pital has assigned Dr. Gerald Resner to work with 

der V. Monto to serve one day a week in his office the Public Defender's office during the fiscal year 

beginning the month of October, 1964. 1965-66 because of the success of the original 

Dr. Monto worked with the staff of the Public experiment with our office last year. 

ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1964-65 

Permanent Salaries $181,143.14 

Temporary Salaries None 

Contractual Services 1,219.00 

Allowance for Use of Investigator's Car 200.00 

Materials and Supplies 825.00 

Law Books and Equipment 1,050.00 

Expert Witness Fees 550.00 

Fixed Charges-Dues 150.00 

Total $185,137.14 

13 



RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

1961-62 1963-64 1964-65 

Ml I I NDANTS KFTKESENTED 

Municipal Court— Misdemeanors 6476 9252 11783 

Juvenile Court . . ... 93 

Municipal Court— Felony Preliminary Hearings 2018 2463 2697 

Superior ( lourt 1249 1444 1658 

TOTAL DFFENDANTS REPRESENTED 9743 13159 16231 

APPEARANCES 

Municipal Court— Misdemeanor 11435 15608 22172 

|u\ enile ( lourt ... ... 114 

Municipal Court— Felony Preliminary Hearings 4722 6443 7630 

Superior Court 5552 6753 7659 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 21709 28804 37575 

ESTIMATED COST, COURT APPEARANCES ONLY: 

Per defendant (approximately) $15.68 $12.40 $11.41 

Per appearance (approximately) 7.01 5.65 4.93 

The cost per appearance does not take into consideration any of the interviews and conferences held 
in the office of the Public Defender such as the 1978 applications that were filed for our services, the 850 
or more office interviews and conferences with people calling at our office; the appearances made by our 
deputies throughout the year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city prison to discuss the cases 
with the clients and conduct interviews. 



14 






PERSONNEL OF 
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S 
OFFICE 






EDWARD T. MANCUSO 


PEARL MORK 


ROBERT NICCO 


Public Defender 


Confidential Secretary 


Chief Attorney, 




to Public Defender 


Criminal 



G 

-* ~ ~ , 




JOSEPH McNAMARA 

Principal Attorney, 
Criminal 



CLAUDE PERASSO 

Principal Attorney, 
Criminal 



CYRIL WEEKS 

Principal Attorney, 
Criminal 



£7* 



JAMES MAGEE 

Senior Attorney, 
Criminal 




MARIETTA AMSDEN 

Clerk-Typist 





f? 



I* 











JOAN CASTRO 


FREDERICK SMITH 


DOUGLAS CORBIN 


WALTER TREFTS, JR 


Legal Stenographer 


Senior Attorney, 


Senior Attorney, 


Senior Attorney, 




Criminal 


Criminal 


Criminal 






SAMUEL WICKLOW 

Trial Attorney, 
Criminal 



ELMER HUTCHISON 

Investigator for 
Public Defender 



DR. ALEX MONTO 

Consulting Psychiatrist 



PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

*»>© 



PQCUMEIMTS 

OCT 17 1966 



•AN FRANCISCO 



ANNUJOEPORT 






PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 



JULY 1, 1965 TO JUNE 30, 1966 





EDWARD T. MANCUSO 

Public Defender 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 



£0* 




PEARL MORK 

Confidential Secretary 
to Public Defender 




ROBERT NICCO 

Chief Attorney 



SCALES OF JUSTICE 
Justice— The Highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 






The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is financially 
unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to 
any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



FOREWORD 

Our society's greal stress on individual rights 
and equal justice for all means nothing unless there 
is competent representation to safeguard these 
rights. Our system of justice under law recognizes 
th.it counsel lor the defense is a vital part of the 
machinery oi justice. 

There can be no equality before the law in a 
criminal proceeding where an experienced and 
skilllul prosecuting attorney, hacked by the power 
ol the state and having at his command the entire 
resources ol the police for investigation, is 
matched against a poor and often friendless de- 
fendant, confined in jail, unable to understand 
even the simplest legal implications of the charges 
against him. and without the help of competent 
counsel is powerless to marshal any facts to con- 
trovert them. 



JURISDICTION 

The State of California enacted enabling legis- 
lation in 1921, paving the way for the establish- 
ment of the Public Defender system in the State 
of California. 

Although the Public Defender's office in San 
Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it 
was not until February, 1955, that this office was 
able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, 
as well as in felony cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now 
operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which was 
adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million 
people, which includes those from the Peninsula 
and the Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 



DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and 
responsibility is to see that each defendant is 
granted a fair and impartial trial; that all of his 
rights are preserved; that the innocent are not 
found guilty; that every possible defense is pre- 
sented; that investigation is made to ascertain if 
any mitigating circumstances exist; and, gener- 
ally, to see that each defendant receives every 
protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, 
under our Federal and State constitutions. 

We never recommend pleas of guilty in felony 
cases at the preliminary hearings. We thus have 
the opportunity of investigating the facts in each 
case and of examining the testimony of the wit- 
nesses, and studying the transcript after the de- 
fendant has been held to answer to the Superior 
Court. 



Our duty is not to secure acquittals or dis- 
missals of the guilty. We endeavor to expedite 
trials and oppose unnecessary delays. To permit a 
case to drag through the criminal courts works a 
great hardship upon the accused, especially when 
the defendants we represent are unable to post 
bail and are in custody pending the disposition of 
their cases. Since almost all of our clients are un- 
able to raise bail, we endeavor to shorten the time 
between the arrest of the accused and the disposi- 
tion of his case. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be cer- 
tain that none but those eligible for legal service 
by the Public Defender's office are represented. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for 
persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil 
rights by filing certificates of rehabilitation when 
released from the State prison, as set forth in Sec- 
tion 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 



WHY WE NEED A 

PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 

A social democracy, such as ours, is zealous in 
the preservation of individual freedoms; to the ex- 
tent that such freedoms are not inconsistent with 
maintenance of the health, welfare and morals of 
the group of which the individual is a part. 

Our Federal and State constitutions protect each 
and every citizen from oppression, in the exercise 
of his basic concerns. The protective influences of 
our democratic way of life find expression in the 
elaborate and extensive fabric of law which char- 
acterizes the administration of justice in situations 
relating to crime, to wit: 



U.S. 

Constitution 

Provisions 



No person shall be held to 
answer for a capital or other in- 
famous crime unless on a present- 
ment or indictment of a grand 
jury. . . . Nor shall any person be 
subject for the same offense to be 
twice put in jeopardy . . . nor shall he be compelled 
in any criminal case to be a witness against him- 
self.— 5th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 
enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an 
impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with 
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process 
for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to liave the 
assistance of counsel for his defense.— 6th Amend- 
ment, U. S. Constitution. 

. . . Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, 
liberty or property without due process of law; nor 
deny any. person within its jurisdiction the equal 



California 

Constitution 

& General 

Laws 




protection of the law.— 14th Amendment, U. S. 
Constitution. 

The provisions of the Califor- 
nia Constitution and the General 
Laws of the State of California, 
as well as the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco, re- 
lating to the protection afforded 
those accused of crime, are not 
inconsistent with the provisions of the United 
States Constitution. 

The prosaic pronouncements of our Constitu- 
tions and Laws indicate nothing more than a pro- 
found declaration of policy on the vital subject of 
individual rights; if these utter- 
ances are to become dynamic, 
living forces in our national life, 
they will become so only because 
of the impetus given them by 
dedicated men and women. 
It is the preservation of these rights and the 
universal application of these protections that the 
Public Defender's office of San Francisco provides, 
under the leadership of Edward T. Mancuso, the 
Public Defender, and the men and women of his 
staff who have dedicated themselves to their work. 
The San Francisco Public Defender's office offers 
the assurance that each person accused of crime, 
irrespective of his station in life, shall receive those 
legal protections to which he is entitled under the 
law, no more and certainly no less. 

RECENT APPELLATE DECISIONS 

Recent decisions of the Fedei"al and State Appel- 
late Courts, in particular the United States Su- 
preme Court, are making the constitutional right 
to counsel real and effective in both Federal and 
State Courts. The effect of these decisions is that 
the constitutional right to counsel is present at 
every critical stage of the proceeding and is avail- 
able to the indigent as well as those financially able 
to afford counsel. The following are some recent 
landmark cases which indicate that the constitu- 
tional right is broad enough to require counsel vir- 
tually at every stage of criminal proceedings: 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 
(right to counsel in both capital and noncapital 
cases is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the 
Constitution of the United States in both Federal 
and State jurisdictions— is being extended to in- 
clude misdemeanors as well as felonies ) . 

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 (treats 
where an accused is taken into custody and inter- 
rogated by the police and the focus shifts from a 
general inquiry into an accusatory process). 

People v. Dorado (1965) 42 Cal. Repr. 169, cer- 
tiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court, 33 USL 



Week 3389 ( holds in effect that when police fail to 
advise the accused of his absolute right to remain 
silent or the right to consult with counsel, his sub- 
sequent confession would be inadmissible even 
though he had not made a formal request for coun- 
sel. The court stated "the constitutional right (to 
counsel) does not arise from the request for coun- 
sel but from the advent of the accusatory stage 
itself"). 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 16 L.ed. 2d 694, 34 
U.S. Law Week 4521. (Following the reasoning in 
Escobedo, Miranda added that any statement 
made by an accused during the process of interro- 
gation, whose freedom of action is denied in any 
significant manner, whether the statement be in- 
culpatory or exculpatory, is inadmissible unless he 
not only has been advised of his absolute right to 
remain silent, that anything said by him can be 
later used against him in court, and his right to 
consult with an attorney prior to saying anything 
and to have his attorney with him during the inter- 
rogation, but also, that if he is indigent (cannot 
afford to hire an attorney) that one will be ap- 
pointed to represent him. 

Miranda further states that an accused has the 
right to terminate questioning at any time. Volun- 
teered statments of any kind are still admissible. ) 

Johnson v. New Jersey (1966) 16 L.ed. 2d 882, 
34 U.S. Law Week 4592 (holds that Escobedo and 
Miranda are not retroactive, unlike Gideon. Esco- 
bedo applies only to persons whose trials began 
after June 22, 1964, and Miranda to trials begin- 
ning after June 13, 1966). 

PERSONAL CONTACT FOR 
OUR SERVICES 

Representation of persons accused of crime who 
are on bail or released on their own recognizance 
(O.R.), has imposed a particular burden on our 
office. 

This problem stems from a recent two-fold de- 
velopment. First: Rail bond firms have become 
more liberal in accepting payment of bail premium 
on the installment plan, which results in more per- 
sons who are in custody being released on bail. 
Many of these are, in fact, indigent and usually 
have borrowed the down payment from relatives 
and friends. 

Secondly: The creation of the San Francisco 
O.R. project by the San Francisco Bar Association. 

During the period covered by this report a total 
of 2,094 applications were made to our office for 
our services. Of this number, 272 were referred to 
a legal panel of attorneys who have agreed to 
handle the defense of criminal cases at a reason- 
able fee; 9 of the applicants were denied our serv- 
ices out right. 



PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1966 

( )ur office consists ol the Following personnel: 

per month 

Public Defender $ 2033 

Chid Attorney, Criminal 1497-1819 

I Principal Attorneys, Criminal 1357-1650 

6' Senior Attorneys, Criminal 1116-1357 

1 Trial Attorney, Criminal 941-1143 

2 Investigators 703-854 

1 Confidential Secretary— with legal training 757 

1 Legal Stenographer 453-551 

2 General Clerk-Typists 400-488 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 
Our offices are loeated at the new Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco 94103, California; 
telephone 553-1671. 



MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED 
IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater 
possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the mis- 
demeanor level than in situations involving the 
commission of a felony. This is due, in part, to the 
fact that before a trial and conviction or acquittal 
in a felony case there must have been a preliminary 
screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a 
Committing magistrate. 

As early as 1955 the concept of justice of the 
then newly appointed Public Defender, Edward T. 
Mancuso, required that a person charged with the 
commission of a misdemeanor, who was unable to 
employ counsel, had the same right to expect and 
receive a fair trial which includes adequate repre- 
sentation and presentation of his defense, as did 
the person who was sufficiently affluent to employ 
counsel of his own choosing or who had counsel 
provided for him because he was charged with a 
more serious offense. Any other position would 
most certainly have been at odds with our tradi- 
tional idea of justice and was most assuredly a 
denial of due process, as has now been recognized 
in the recent Appellate Court decisions. 

We have found that an increasing number of 
so-called minor offenses or misdemeanors were 
continually presenting more complex issues and 



carrying more severe penalties; some penalties, in 
their practical implications, are considerably more 
severe than penalties in some felony cases. Serious, 
surprising and unanticipated results often follow 
when an uninformed and inexperienced person 
pleads guilty to a minor offense either in order to 
save time or to win an expected suspension of 
sentence. There is no criteria that can be utilized 
to measure these circumstances. In the main the 
problem is one that is essentially parochial in 
nature and must be resolved on the basis of each 
community's need. In larger communities there is 
an ever pressing need for representation in all 
criminal proceedings, although there are no avail- 
able statistics by which to measure the volume of 
cases. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as mis- 
demeanors and carry severe penalties, our experi- 
ence has convinced us that the constant presence 
in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public De- 
fender greatly decreases the possibility of any mis- 
carriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and 
equitable disposition of many cases. 

Today the judges of the Municipal and Traffic 
Courts feel that it is absolutely necessary that a 
Public Defender be available at all times while the 
court is in session to assist in the expediting of the 
court calendar and to be available for appoint- 
ment when necessary. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR 

1963-64 

Number of defendants represented* 9252 

Charges filed against defendants 13899 

Number of appearances made by deputies 15608 

"Previous years included traffic defendants. 

Of the defendants, 2305 were women, or approximately 24%. - 



CASES 



964-65 


1965-66 


11862 


9568 


18281 


12258 


22172 


19424 



DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1963-64 1964-65 196.5-66 

Defendants plead guilty 2944 2949 2764 

Defendants found guilty 2922 3894 1984 

Defendants dismissed or discharged 1442 2088 1840 

Defendants found not guilty 609 605 172 

Taken over by Private Counsel 386 820 1249 

Special Appearance 235 200 129 

Motions to Revoke Probation-New: Revoked 190, Denied 82 273 308 272 

Certified to Juvenile Court-Minors 17 28 25 

Certified to Superior Court under Section 1368 Penal Code .... 54 62 64 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 13 23 23 

Motions to Expunge Records Under 1203.4 Penal Code 42 86 165 

Motions to Seal Records Under 1203.45 Penal Code 52 94 

Mentally Ill-Bedside Hearings (Committed 288) 55 94 509 

Warrants Issued 109 187 84 

Cases still pending 55 312 149 

Miscellaneous— Bail Forfeited, etc 15 98 95 

"Note 1: Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases where, 
after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and therefore dis- 
missed the charges filed against him. In over 21% of the cases where charges were filed against defendants, the 
defendants were dismissed or found not guilty. 

UNIT OF COUNTING MISDEMEANOR JURY CASES 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is When a jury trial is demanded, the case is re- 

the defendant, rather than the case or charge. If ferred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thor- 

several cases on one individual are prosecuted dur- ough discussion of the case with the Deputy Public 

ing an overlapping time period, they are combined. Defender appointed to represent said client, there 

When there are multiple cases or charges, a de- is almost always a request by the client who had 

fendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only previously demanded a jury trial that the demand 

if there are dismissals or acquittals on all such cases for the jury trial be waived, and the case referred 

or charges. A defendant is counted as convicted back to the original judge for final disposition, 

when there is a conviction on any one of a group Last year we had 55 jury trials out of 471 de- 

of cases or charges, even if the conviction be for mands. 
an uncharged lesser and included offense to any of 
the charged offenses. 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY, 
WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 

Committed to Comity Jail 1393 1173 958 

Committed to County Jail— One Day Suspended* ... 153 116 

Fined or Jail Time 400 541 102 

Sentenced to Time Served 170 322 51 

Suspended Sentence 1010 1006 790 

Suspended Sentence with Fine or Restitution 287 103 61 

Fine or Restitution 443 579 96 

Probation Granted 681 250 123 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 600 2032 1678 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 560 107 462 

Probation with Jail Time 213 224 225 

Probation with Jail Time, Restitution or Fine 58 45 43 

Miscellaneous 16 8 16 

Bench Warrants Issued— Failure to Appear— Final Disposition 14 187 85 

Alcoholic School ( New) 9 54 98 

"When the court imposes a county jail sentence with one day suspended, he thereby maintains control of the 
sentence imposed upon the defendant which can be modified any time thereafter within his discretion to either 
time served or a lesser jail time than originally imposed. 



Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
si\ months, or both fine and imprisonment. 

UN MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 

Section lis -Penal ( lode 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 612 654 548 

Section 270— Penal Code-Child neglect-Failure to provide . . . 448 471 288 

Section 415-Penal Code-Affray and Disturbing Peace 749 818 931 

Section 488-Penal Code-Petty theft 1235 1315 1453 

Section 594— Penal Code-Malicious Mischief 303 390 365 

Section 647— Penal Code— Disorderly conduct (7 sections) 

\ew section. Vagrancy provisions of prior years repealed 1000 1548 530 

Section 647B— Penal Code 

Solicits or engages in act of prostitution ... ... 1434 

Section 650&- Penal Code 

Act against public peace, health or decency; 

false personation ... ... 147 

Section 1291— Municipal Police Code 

Loitering while carrying concealed weapon ... ... 221 

Section 11910-Health & Safety Code 

Possession of drugs without prescription ... ... 263 

Section 647f— Penal Code— Counted separately 

Under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug 1722 1979 1424 

Section 242-Penal Code-Battery 768 942 791 

Section 4143A— Business & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypodermic needle or syringe 349 394 392 

Section 4230— Business & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypnotic or dangerous drugs, etc 372 442 120 

Section 11721-Health & Safety Code-Narcotic addicts 93 144 147 

Section 2101— Unemployment Insurance Code 

False statement or representation or concealment 97 131 206 

All other sections-xMotor Vehicle Code 223, Penal Code 2435 2107 2818 2658 

MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

Due to an increased need for representation in traffic cases arising out of the increased demand by the 
Traffic Courts that the Public Defender be available for the representation of indigent people, and par- 
ticularly for the representation of all minors appearing before the Traffic Court, we have found it necessary 
to initiate the following changes in our reporting procedures: 

1. Maintain separate records in traffic cases; 

2. Report them separately rather than included in the misdemeanor cases as was heretofore the policy. 

Defendants represented in Traffic Court 4453 

Charges filed against defendants in Traffic Court 8608 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Traffic Court .... 6661 
(Women represented: 317) 






DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC CASES 

Defendants Plead Guilty 1368 

Defendants Found Guilty 1691 

Defendants Dismissed 519 

Defendants Dismissed condition Traffic School 290 

Defendants Found Not Guilty 163 

Taken over by Private Counsel 204 

Special Appearance 25 

Motion to Revoke Probation 44 

Revoked: 25 

Denied: 19 

Bench Warrant Issued 63 

Miscellaneous Cases 50 

Cases Still Pending 36 

Total 4453 

'There were 78 jury demands in Traffic cases during fiscal year 1965-66; there were 7 actual jury trials. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY, 
WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED IN TRAFFIC COURT 

Committed to County Jail 532 

Committed to County Jail, 1 day suspended 33 

Fined or Jail Time 511 

Probation with Jail Time, Some with Restitution or Fine 102 

Sentenced to Time Served 267 

Suspended Sentence 209 

Suspended Sentence or Probation with Fine or Restitution 158 

Fine or Restitution 881 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 262 

Pending for Sentence 6 

Miscellaneous 123 

Total 3084 

License Suspended Part of Case" 294 

License Not Suspended Part of Case 127 

"Suspension mandatory on plea of guilty, or finding of guilt or forfeiture of bail in certain cases. 

When charged with Section 23102— Vehicle Code, unless the Judge at time of sentence recommends there be no 
suspension of license (first conviction), the license is automatically suspended by the Department of Motor 
Vehicles. 



MAIN CHARGES CITED IN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS 

Section 10852— Vehicle Code— Injuring or tampering with vehicle or contents 147 

Section 1 i2v>.~> 1 -Vehicle Code— Drivers license, not in possession, refusal to display 875 

Section 1 1601— Vehicle Code— Driving when driving privilege suspended or revoked 1185 

Section 23102— Vehicle Code— Driving while under the influence of alcohol (or combined with drug) 520 

Section 647J Penal Code— Drunk in and about an auto 533 

Section 23109a— Vehicle ( lode— Engage in, aid, or abet a speed contest 198 

Section 23123— Vehicle ('ode— Storage of opened containers— liquor 136 

Section 2(H)02a— Vehicle Code— Hit-run with property damage 310 

Section 2 1 153a— Vehicle Code— Failure to obey traffic signals 137 

Section 22350— Vehicle Code— Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions (use for all prima facie limits) 782 

Section W508— Vehicle Code— Failure to appear, after signing citation 468 

Talking tag citations 194 

Section 4000a— Vehicle Code— Vehicle on highway, unregistered or with additional fees due, 

or registered in violation of air pollution control regulations 137 

renal ( lode Sections 221 

Bench Warrants 240 

Other Vehicle Code Sections 2508 

Total 8606 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

1963-64 

Defendants represented in Municipal Court 2463 

Charges filed against defendants in Municipal Court 4130 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Municipal Court 6443 



•64-65 


1965-66 


2697 


3155 


6244 


4139 


7630 


9103 



DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1963-64 1964-65 

Defendants Held to Answer 991 1126 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 386 373 

Taken Over by Private Counsel 334 350 

Indicted by Grand Jury 174 159 

Certified to Superior Court 39 17 

Special Appearances Made 21 39 

Fugitives Appeared for 69 66 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 362 388 

Referred to Juvenile Division ( Minors ) 9 17 

Held Mentally Ill-Hospitalized 25 24 

Certified to Superior Court Under Section 1368, Penal Code 37 48 

Miscellaneous Disposition— Bench Warrants— Withdrew 16 11 

Pending Cases ... 79 

Total 2463 2697 



1965-66 

1198 

438 

552 

97 

26 

45 

64 

539 

9 

24 

2 

88 

73 



3155 



REDUCED CHARGES— 539 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing 
in the Municipal Court to a lesser included offense ( to wit a misdemeanor ) , and the felony charge is dis- 
missed. This prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 539 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows : 

Sentenced to County Jail 201 

County Jail with Probation 70 

County Jail— One day suspended 29 

Probation or suspended sentence 

( some with fine or restitution) 231 

Miscellaneous 8 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

196.3-64 1964-65 1965-66 

Old Cases 34 47 70 

New Cases (281 with priors) 1410 1611 1626 

Total 1444 1658 1696 

Of the 1696 represented, 119 were women or approximately 7%. 

The period of time within with felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows: 

196.3-64 1964-65 1965-66 

30 days or less 52 % 57.8% 59.2% 

31 to 60 days 33 % 27.6% 26.5% 

61 to 90 days 9.3% 8.8% 7.5% 

Over 90 days 5.7% 5.8% 6.8% 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sen- 
tenced and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the 
time after trial and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre Sentence Reports. 
This period of time is usually three weeks. 

Most cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant- 
some represented by private counsel; cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving capital 
crimes and cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed. 

NEW CASES 

1963-64 
Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal Court 991 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 39 

Indicted by Grand Jury 174 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 206 

Total 1410 1626 



164-65 


1965-66 


1126 


1198 


67 


26 


159 


97 


259 


305 



DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 

1 tefendants plead guilty 749 745 814 

Defendants found guilty (Many of lesser included offenses) . . 121 142 104 



1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 



Bj Jurj 47 

By Court 74 

Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 

I )efendants dismissed 

Defendants Found not guilty by reason of insanity 

1 )efendants found not guilty 



71 
71 



52 

52 



72 

40 

4 

31 



94 

108 
4 

23 



146 

99 

9 

32 



1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 

By |urv 10 16 10 

By Court 21 7 22 

During the fiscal year the Public Defender's office made 952 motions for probation in the felony cases 
handled. In 550 cases, probation was granted; in 376 cases probation was denied; 28 cases were pending 
for decision. 



1963-64 

Mentally ill cases— all jury trials 14 

Substituted by Private Counsel (many because of 

conflict of interest) 116 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 21 

Certified from Municipal Court under Section 1368, Penal Code 88 

Certified from Municipal Court under 5500, W&I Code 7 

Motion to revoke probation (new cases) 61 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 7 

Motion to expunge or seal record 10 

Returned from hospital for sentence 10 

Returned from Narcotic Rehabilitation Center 13 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency ( 75 handled ) 3 

Miscellaneous and Bench Warrants 13 

Writs of Habeas Corpus 7 

Cases closed during year (old and new) 1397 

Cases still pending 47 

During the fiscal year 1965-66 our office made the following motions: 

Motions for dismissal under Section 995, Penal Code 

Granted 32 Denied 



1964-65 

7 

130 

18 

96 

12 

103 

19 

9 

33 

8 

3 

19 

10 

1588 

70 



1965-66 
10 



17 

107 

24 

102 

16 

6 

42 

15 

7 

20 

27 

1659 

37 



115 



83 



Motions for treatment as narcotic addict under Section 3050-51 H&S Code . . 
Admitted for treatment ... 80 Not eligible for treatment . 



89 



10 



MURDER CASES 

During the fiscal year, the Public Defender represented 18 defendants charged with murder. They 
were disposed of as follows: There were no first degree holdings or death penalties in our murder cases 
last year. 

3 plead guilty, second degree; 

7 plead guilty, manslaughter; 

3 found not guilty by reason of insanity; 

1 found presently insane under Section 1368 of the Penal Code; 

1 dismissed under Motion 995— Penal Code; 

2 transferred to private counsel; 

1 special appearance made by the Public Defender on habeas corpus writ. 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 
PLEAD GUILTY, WERE FOUND GUILTY, OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1963-64 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 171 

Sentenced to County Jail 328 

Probation or suspended sentence with County Jail time 273 

( Some with fine or restitution ) 

Probation or suspended sentence 155 174 227 

( Some with fine or restitution ) 

Committed to Youth Authority 57 67 51 

Committed to State Hospitals 62 60 73 

Total 1046 1049 1095 



1964-65 


196.5-66 


209 


142 


294 


307 


245 


295 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 
SUPERIOR COURT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1965-66 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the dis- 
cretion of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been 
rendered imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fell into the following categories: 

196.3-64 1964-65 1965-66 

Section 459-Penal Code Burglary 335 397 406 

Section 211-Penal Code-Robbery 189 313 215 

Health & Safety Code-Narcotic charges 229 301 234 

Section 10851-Vehicle Code-Theft of vehicle 102 126 144 

Section 470-Penal Code-Forgery 108 117 154 

Section 487-Penal Code-Grand Theft 124 134 98 

Section 245-Penal Code-Felonious Assault 102 139 107 

Other charges-Penal Code 2142, Health & Safety Code 43 ... . 531 760 2185 

Total charges 1720 2287 3948 

11 



APPEALS 

It is tin- ilut\ o! the Public Defender, and he 
shall prosecute all appeals to a higher court or 
courts i>l an) person who has been convicted, 
where, ill his opinion, the appeal will or might 
reasonabl) be expected to result in the reversal or 
modification oi the judgment of conviction. (Gov. 
( lode Section 2770(1 ) 

Uthough some appeals are taken, the lack of 
personnel in our office precludes our handling 
many appeals. In these situations, or upon the re- 
quest ol a defendant, our office files written notice 
ol appeal and request for transcripts on behalf of 
the defendant in order to protect his constitutional 
and statutory rights. The appropriate Appellate 
Court then assigns appointed counsel to represent 
the indigent defendant on appeal. 

JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS 

Following recommendations made by the Spe- 
cial Stud}' Commission on Juvenile Justice created 
by the Governor in 1957, the 1981 Legislature en- 
acted the new and revised Juvenile Court Law 
contained in the Welfare and Institutions Code 
( Section 500 et seq. ) . Among the many problems 
which the Commission felt impeded the adminis- 
tration of Juvenile Justice in California was quote: 
"Basic legal rights are neither being uniformly nor 
adequately protected under present Juvenile Court 
Provisions and Procedures." (Special Study Com- 
mission report, page 12, 1960.) 

Recognizing the need for the right to counsel in 
juvenile matters, the Commission in its recommen- 
dations stated: "The Commission believes that the 
right to be represented by counsel is a necessary 
element of due process in every legal proceeding, 
civil, juvenile, or criminal. Since the Juvenile Court 
hearing constitutes a legal proceeding that may 
drastically affect the status of both the child and 
the parent-child relationship, the right to counsel 
in this proceeding should be guaranteed. . . . 

"In our opinion, all judges should be required to 
inform the minor and his parents of this right as a 
routine part of the Juvenile Court procedure. . . . 

"To insure that all persons who desire counsel 
will have an opportunity to be represented, the 
Commission recommends that court-appointed 
counsel be provided to indigent parties upon their 
request. In addition, in the event there is a con- 
flict of interest between the parents and the minor, 
the Court should be empowered to appoint addi- 
tional counsel." ( Special Study Commission report, 
page 26, 1960.) 

This recommendation was adopted by the Legis- 
lature in its enactment of the new Juvenile Court 
Law in 1961 and is contained in Section 634 of the 



Welfare and Institutions Code which reads as fol- 
lows: "When it appears to the Court that the 
minor or his parent or guardian desires counsel 
but is indigent and cannot for that reason employ 
counsel, the Court may appoint counsel. In such 
a case the Court may oppoint counsel for the minor 
if he is charged with misconduct which would con- 
stitute a felony if committed by an adult. In any 
case in which it appears to the Court that there is 
such a conflict of interest between a parent or 
guardian and child that one attorney could not 
properly represent both, the Court may appoint 
counsel in addition to counsel already employed 
by a parent or guardian or appointed by the Court 
to represent the minor or a parent or guardian." 

Pursuant to this mandate, our office represented 
142 juveniles during the period covered by this re- 
port. ( See also Sections 633, 658, 659, 700 of the 
Welfare and Institution Code. ) 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

In May, 1960, the Board of Supervisors of the 
City and County of San Francisco approved the 
following ordinance for the establishment of an 
Internship Program in the office of the Public De- 
fender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attor- 
neys. The Public Defender is hereby authorized to 
institute a system of internship for duly qualified law 
students and attorneys of the City and County of San 
Francisco to serve in the office of the Public Defender 
and thereby acquire experience in the field of criminal 
law. The said service to be entirely voluntary and un- 
der the supervision of the Public Defender and perma- 
nant members of the office of the Public Defender. 

Law students and attorneys serving under this sys- 
tem of internship shall be designated and shall serve 
at the pleasure of the Public Defender. Each attorney 
so designated must be qualified to practice in all the 
Courts of the State. 

There shall be no salary, wages, or compensation of 
any kind or nature paid to said law students or attor- 
neys, nor shall any such person be eligible to be a 
member of the retirement system of the City and 
County of San Francisco or have any rights thereunder 
by reason of such service. 

Twenty-seven students in their third year of law 
from Hastings College of the Law (a branch of 
the University of California in San Francisco ) par- 
ticipated in a joint working program with our of- 
fice. Each week while in session two senior law 
students are assigned to observe and work with our 
deputies during the performance of their duties as 
criminal lawyers. They serve directly under the 
supervision of our deputies and investigator. Their 
hours are accounted for and the law school allows 
them academic credits for this experience. 

During the summer months of 1966, three third 
year law students participated, on a full time basis, 



12 



as student interns in the Public Defender's office. 
They were Lonnie G. McGee and Joseph C. 
Tinney of the University of San Francisco Law 
School and William T. Rintala of the School of 
Law (Boalt Hall) of the University of California 
at Berkeley. 

INVESTIGATION 

It is obvious that if the Court and the jury are to 
deal intelligently with defendants and render 
proper judgments, all of the facts and circum- 
stances must be known to the deputy so that the 
case may be fairly and clearly presented in court. 

Our Investigators' duties are comparable to 
those of investigators employed in any private law 
office or by the District Attorney's office; mainly 
to locate, interview and secure signed statements 
from witnesses, in addition to making field investi- 
gations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. 
In cerain cases, it is impossible, without an investi- 
gator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon 
investigation, the deputy can determine from the 
data accumulated— regardless of whether the in- 
formation discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused— the guilt or innocence of the defendant, 
as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In some cases, discovered evidence has resulted 
in showing the complete innocence of certain de- 
fendants, although at first the evidence appeared 
strongly to indicate the guilt of the defendant. 
With careful investigation, it is possible to elimi- 
nate many miscarriages of justice, and reduce to a 
minimum long jury trials. 

During the 1965-66 fiscal year the Investigators 
for this office were assigned and completed 327 
cases for investigation; conducted 1812 personal 



interviews; served 93 subpoenas to people perti- 
nent to these cases; made 141 record searches for 
information of value to the defendants; and ob- 
tained 31 hospital reports and records for trial 
preparation; personally testified for the defense in 
10 of the assigned cases. 

In addition to the assigned cases, the Investi- 
gators completed 22 Special Investigations as a 
courtesy, for other Counties. 

PUBLIC DEFENDER ACQUIRES 
PSYCHIATRIC CONSULTANT 

Beginning in 1964 Public Defender Edward T. 
Mancuso made arrangements with the Psychiatric 
Institute at Langley Porter Hospital for the serv- 
ices of Dr. Alexander V. Monto to serve one day a 
week in his office beginning the month of October, 
1964. 

Dr. Monto worked with the staff of the Public 
Defender's Office as a consultant to them on the 
psychological evalution of defendants; since 
psychological considerations of intent and similar 
aspects of an act are now recognized as important. 

In leaving our office he said: 

"I believe that if more psychiatrists had the op- 
portunity to work with these problems in a similar 
setting, there would be greater understanding be- 
tween the legal and psychiatric professions, and 
progress in developing better ways to deal with 
the difficult social problems with which both pro- 
fessions are concerned." 

The Psychiatric Institute at Langley Porter Hos- 
pital assigned Dr. Gerald Resner to work with the 
Public Defender's office during the fiscal year 
1965-66 because of the success of the original 
experiment with our office the preceding year. 



ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1965-66 

Permanent Salaries $230,090.00 

Temporary Salaries None 

Contractual Services 1,309.00 

Allowance for Use of Investigator's Car 200.00 

Materials and Supplies 1,025.00 

Law Books and Equipment 5,602.00 

Expert Witness Fees 550.00 

Fixed Charges-Dues 190.00 

Total $238,966.00 



13 



RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

196.3-64 
DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 

Traffic ( Eases 

Municipal ( lourt— Misdemeanors 9252 

Juvenile Court ... 

Municipal Court— Felony Preliminary Hearings 2463 

Superior (lourt 1444 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 13159 

APPEARANCES 

Traffic Cases 

Municipal Court— Misdemeanor 15608 

Juvenile Court ... 

Municipal Court— Felony Preliminary Hearings 6443 

Superior Court 6753 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 28804 

ESTIMATED COST, COURT APPEARANCES ONLY: 

Per defendant (approximately) $12.40 

Per appearance (approximately) 5.65 



1964-65 



16231 



37575 



$11.41 
4.93 



1965-66 





4453 


11783 


9298 


93 


142 


2697 


3155 


1658 


1696 



18744 





6661 


22172 


19224 


114 


168 


7630 


9103 


7659 


7142 



42130 



$13.00 
5.67 



The cost per appearance does not take into consideration any of the interviews and conferences held 
in the office of the Public Defender such as the 2094 applications that were filed for our services, the many 
office interviews and conferences with people calling at our office; the appearances made by our deputies 
throughout the year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city prison to discuss the cases with 
the clients and conduct interviews. 









14 



ANNUAL REPORT 



/// 



PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MAY 5 1969 



JULY 1, 1966 TO JUNE 30, 1967 

EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 




SCALES OF JUSTICE 
Justice— The Highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33 . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is financially 
unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give counsel or advice to 
any person charged with the commission of a crime." 

We also operate under Section 27706 of the Government Code of the State of California; 
Sections 633, 634, 658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, together with Section 
4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 



JURISDICTION 

The State ol California enacted enabling Legis- 
lation in L921, paving the way For the establish- 
ment ol the Public Defender system in the State 
ol ( lalifornia. 

Although the Public Defender's offiee in San 
Francisco was established October 15, 1921, it 
w.is not until February, 1955, that this office was 
able to represent defendants in misdemeanor cases, 
as well as in Felony eases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office now 
operates under Section 33 of the Charter of the 
( it\ and County of San Francisco, which was 
adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million 
people, which includes those from the Peninsula 
and the Bay Area who visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and 
responsibility is to see that each defendant is 
granted a fair and impartial trial; that all of his 
rights are preserved; that the innocent are not 
found guilty; that every possible defense is pre- 
sented; that investigation is made to ascertain if 
any mitigating circumstances exist; and, gener- 
ally, to see that each defendant receives every 
protection of the law to which he is justly entitled, 
under our Federal and State constitutions. 

We exercise extreme care and caution to be cer- 
tain that none but those eligible for legal service 
by the Public Defender's office are represented. 

Part of our duties are to handle applications for 
persons who seek a pardon and restoration of civil 
rights by filing certificates of rehabilitation when 
released from the State prison, as set forth in Sec- 
tion 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. Last year 
we had 57 persons who applied for and filed peti- 
tions for rehabilitation. 

WHY WE NEED A 

PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 

Our Federal and State constitutions protect each 
and every citizen from oppression, in the exercise 
of his basic concerns. The protective influences of 
our democratic way of life find expression in the 
elaborate and extensive fabric of law which char- 
acterizes the administration of justice in situations 
relating to crime, to wit: 

No person shall be held to 
answer for a capital or other in- 
famous crime unless on a present- 
ment or indictment of a grand 
jury. . . . Nor shall any person be 
subject for the same offense to be 



twice put in jeopardy . . . nor shall he be compelled 
in any criminal case to be a witness against him- 
self.— 5th Amendment, U. S. Constitution. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 
enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an 
impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with 
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process 
for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the 
assistance of counsel for his defense.— 6th Amend- 
ment, U. S. Constitution. 

. . . Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, 
liberty or property without due process of law; nor 
deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the law.— 14th Amendment, U. S. 
Constitution. 



California 

Constitution 

& General 

Laws 



U. S. 

Constitution 
Provisions 



The provisions of the Califor- 
nia Constitution and the General 
Laws of the State of California, 
as well as the Charter of the City 
and County of San Francisco, re- 
lating to the protection afforded 
those accused of crime, are not 
inconsistent with the provisions of the United 
States Constitution. 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Ap- 
pellate Courts, in particular the United States 
Supreme Court, are making the constitutional right 
to counsel real and effective in both Federal and 
State Courts. 

The effect of these decisions is that the consti- 
tutional right to counsel is present at every critical 
stage of the proceeding and is available to the 
indigent as well as those financially able to afford 
counsel. Because of these decisions and our soci- 
ety's stress on individual rights, new and adequately 
staffed Public Defender offices are being estab- 
lished throughout the Nation. Existing Public 
Defender offices have had their staff considerably 
increased so as to be able to adequately and effec- 
tively represent those entitled to their services to 
furnish representation as set forth by the decisions. 
Unfortunately in San Francisco progress required 
in the area of representation of the indigent is 
being drastically and seriously curtailed. The San 
Francisco Public Defender office some years ago 
was the acknowledged leader in providing proper 
representation. Even before the recent decisions, 
expanding the need and role of representation to 
the indigent, the San Francisco Public Defender 
office was representing those accused of misde- 
meanor crimes and major traffic violations as well 
as felonies; representing juveniles and the alleged 
mentally ill. However, since 1963 the caseload 
and appearances have doubled and in some area 
tripled. New criminal courts have been added, 



with no addition to the staff. The case load per 
deputy in San Francisco in all courts and particu- 
larly in the 3 municipal courts (4800 defendants 
represented by each deputy ) is by far the highest 
in the Nation. Obviously such a caseload makes 
it impossible to give proper representation to each 
defendant. In addition, Juvenile cases are increas- 
ing at an ever rapid rate; a new Superior Court in 
the Criminal Division has been opened and two 
new Municipal Courts in the Criminal Division 
are being proposed; all this without any increase 
in the Public Defender Staff. 

It is obvious that the San Francisco Public 
Defender cannot cope with its duties and respon- 
sibilities with its present staff. 

From being the model for Public Defender of- 
fices throughout the United States, the Public 
Defender office in San Francisco is now unable 
to meet even the minimal standards required for 
Defender services, let alone handle the new courts 
and constitutionally required expanded services. 

The Public Defender is now in the process of 
preparing a supplemental appropriation for the 
additional help needed so that the office may ade- 
quately provide the much needed and required 
service. If additional help is not granted, the Public 
Defender will be forced to ask the Judges to 
appoint private counsel in many instances. 

Among the recent landmark cases which indi- 
cate that the constitutional right is broad enough 
to require counsel at virtually every stage of crimi- 
nal proceedings for both adults and juveniles are: 
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 
People v. Dorado (1965) 42 Cal Reptr. 169. 
Certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court 
33 USL Week 3389 
Miranda v. Arizona ( 1966) 34 U. S. Law Week 

4521 
In re Gault (1967) 35 U. S. Law Week 4399 

PERSONAL CONTACT FOR 
OUR SERVICES 

Representation of persons accused of crime who 
are on bail or released on their own recognizance 
(O.R. ), has imposed a particular burden on our 
office. 

This problem stems from a recent two-fold de- 
velopment. First: Bail bond firms have become 
more liberal in accepting payment of bail premium 



on the installment plan, which results in more per- 
sons who are in custody being released on bail. 
Many of these are, in fact, indigent and usually 
have borrowed the down payment from relatives 
and friends. 

Second: The creation of the San Francisco 
O.R. project by the San Francisco Bar Association. 

During the period covered by this report a total 
of 2,671 applications were made to our office for 
our services. Of this number, 232 were referred to 
a legal panel of attorneys who have agreed to 
handle the defense of criminal cases at a reason- 
able fee; 37 of the applicants were denied our serv- 
ices outright. 



MISDEMEANOR CASES HANDLED 
IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater 
possibility of a miscarriage of justice at the mis- 
demeanor level than in situations involving the 
commission of a felony. This is due, in part, to the 
fact that before a trial and conviction or acquittal 
in a felony case there must have been a preliminary 
screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a 
Committing Magistrate. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as mis- 
demeanors and carry severe penalties, our experi- 
ence has convinced us that the constant presence 
in the Municipal Court of a Deputy Public De- 
fender greatly decreases the possibility of any mis- 
carriage of justice, and aids in the speedy and 
equitable disposition of many cases. 

Today the judges of the Municipal and Traffic 
Courts feel that it is absolutely necessary that a 
Public Defender be available at all times while the 
court is in session to assist in the expediting of the 
court calendar and to be available for appoint- 
ment when necessary. 



MISDEMEANOR JURY CASES 

When a jury trial is demanded, the case is re- 
ferred to the jury calendar for trial. After a thor- 
ough discussion of the case with the Deputy Public 
Defender appointed to represent said client, there 
is almost always a request by the client who had 
previously demanded a jury trial that the demand 
for the jury trial be waived. 

Last year we represented 848 clients who had 
demanded jury trials. 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

Number oJ defendants represented 11862 9568 11687 

( Iharges filed against defendants 18281 12258 17847 

Number oi appearances made by deputies 22172 19424 28067 

Pre> ious \ ens included traffic defendants. 



DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

I tefendants plead guilty 2949 2764 3037 

Defendants found guilty 3894 1984 1968 

1 )efendants dismissed or discharged* 2088 1840 2454 

I )efendants found not guilty 605 172 332 

Taken over by Private Counsel 820 1249 1200 

Special Appearance 200 129 531 

Motions to Revoke Probation-New 308 272 261 

Certified to Juvenile Court-Minors 28 25 30 

( terrified to Superior Court under Section 1368 Penal Code 62 64 18 

Motions to Reduce or Modify Sentences 23 23 23 

Motions to Expunge Records Under 1203.4 Penal Code 86 165 130 

Motions to Seal Records Under 1203.45 Penal Code 52 94 100 

Motion to Expunge Records Under 1722 Welfare and 

Institutions Code ... ... 7 

Mentally Ill-Hearings 94 509 1055 

Warrants Issued 187 84 345 

Cases still pending 312 149 106 

Miscellaneous— Rail Forfeited, etc 98 95 35 

Alcoholic ... ... 49 

°Xote 1: Many of the cases listed above, showing that defendants were dismissed or discharged, are cases where, 
after a court hearing, the judge found the evidence insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and therefore dis- 
missed the charges filed against him. 



DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY, 
WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

Committed to County Jail 1173 958 964 

Committed to County Jail— One Day Suspended* 153 116 177 

Fined or Jail Time 541 102 248 

Sentenced to Time Served 322 51 45 

Suspended Sentence 1006 790 860 

Fine or Restitution 579 96 115 

Probation Granted 250 123 566 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence ( Most with Fine 

or Restitution) 2032 1678 1761 

Probation Granted with Restitution or Fine 107 462 115 

Probation with Jail Time 224 225 194 

Miscellaneous 8 16 16 

Alcoholic School (New) 54 98 16 

°YVhen the court imposes a county jail sentence with one day suspended, he thereby maintains control of the 
sentence imposed upon the defendant which can be modified any time thereafter within his discretion to either 
time served or a lesser jail time than originally imposed. 

4 



Most misdemeanor cases carry penalties of a fine or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than 
six months, or both fine and imprisonment. 

THE MAIN CHARGES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANANTS HANDLED BY THE PUBLIC 
DEFENDER WERE: 



1964-65 
Section 148— Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 654 

Section 270— Penal Code— Child neglect— Failure to provide . . . 471 

Section 272-Penal Code 

Causing minors to become ward of Juvenile Court ... 

Section 415— Penal Code— Affray and Disturbing Peace 818 

Section 370— Penal Code— Public nuisance— Obstructing free 

and comfortable use of liberty and property 

Section 488-Penal Code-Petty theft 1315 

Section 594— Penal Code— Malicious Mischief 390 

Section 647— Penal Code— Disorderly conduct ( 7 sections ) . 

New section. Vagrancy provisions of prior years repealed 1548 
Section 647B— Penal Code 

Solicits or engages in act of prostitution 

Section 650^-Penal Code 

Act against public peace, health or decency; 

false personation 

Section 1291— Municipal Police Code 

Loitering while carrying concealed weapon ... 

Section 11910-Health & Safety Code 

Possession of drugs without prescription ... 

Section 647f— Penal Code— Counted separately 

Under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug 1979 

Section 242-Penal Code-Battery 942 

Section 4143A— Business & Prof. Code 

Possession of hypodermic needle or syringe 394 

Section 11721-Health & Safety Code-Narcotic addicts 144 

Section 2101— Unemployment Insurance Code 

False statement or representation or concealment 131 

Park Code Sections 

All other sections-Motor Vehicle Code 223, Penal Code 2435 2818 



1965-66 



1966-67 



548 


887 


288 


287 




288 


931 


1114 




269 


1453 


2203 


365 


437 


530 


589 


1434 


1900 


147 


129 


221 


248 


263 


599 


1424 


1540 


791 


1033 


392 


687 


147 


63 


206 


299 




71 


2658 


5194 



MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

Due to an increased need for representation in traffic cases arising out of the increased demand by the 
Traffic Courts that the Public Defender be available for the representation of indigent people, and par- 
ticularly for the representation of all minors appearing before the Traffic Court, we have found it necessary 
to initiate the following changes in our reporting procedures : 

1. Maintain separate records in traffic cases; 

2. Report them separately rather than included in the misdemeanor cases as was heretofore the 
policy. 

1965-66 1966-67 

Defendants represented in Traffic Court 4453 7590 

Charges filed against defendants in Traffic Court 8606 16,177 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Traffic Court . . 6661 9943 



DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC CASES 

1965-66 

Defendants Plead Guilty 1368 

I )efendants Found Guilty 1691 

Defendants Dismissed 519 

Defendants Dismissed condition Traffic School. . . . 290 

1 >efendants Found Not Guilty 163 

Taken over by Private Counsel 204 

Special Appearance 25 

Motion to Revoke Probation 44 

Bench Warrant Issued 63 

Miscellaneous Cases 50 

( .uses Still Pending 36 

Total 4453 



1966-67 

3254 

2283 

1086 

320 

82 

188 

98 

75 

136 

13 

55 



7590 



In many cases where the defendant was dismissed he was sent to traffic school for 2 days. 

DISPOSITION OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY, 
WERE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED IN TRAFFIC COURT 

1965-66 1966-67 

Committed to County Jail [mostly only a few days] 532 2039 

Committed to County Jail, 1 day suspended 33 12 

Fined or Jail Time 511 762 

Probation with Jail Time, Some with Restitution or Fine 102 222 

Sentenced to Time Served 267 714 

Suspended Sentence 209 428 

Suspended Sentence or Probation with Fine or Restitution 158 585 

Fine or Restitution 881 774 

Probation Granted with Suspended Sentence 262 114 

Pending for Sentence 6 8 

Miscellaneous 123 27 



MAIN CHARGES CITED IN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS 

1965-66 

Section 10852— Vehicle Code— Injuring or tampering with vehicle or contents 147 

Section 12951— Vehicle Code— Driver's license, not in possession, refusal to display .... 875 
Section 14601— Vehicle Code— Driving when driving privilege suspended or revoked. . 1185 
Section 23102— Vehicle Code— Driving while under the influence of alcohol 

( or combined with drug ) 520 

Section 647f— Penal Code— Drunk in and about an auto 533 

Section 23109a— Vehicle Code— Engage in, aid, or abet a speed contest 198 

Section 23123— Vehicle Code— Storage of opened containers— liquor 136 

Section 20002a— Vehicle Code— Hit-run with property damage 310 

Section 21451— Vehicle Code— Stop and go signals 

Section 22101— Vehicle Code— Marking or signs for turning 

Section 21453a— Vehicle Code— Failure to obey traffic signals 137 

Section 22350— Vehicle Code— Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions 

( use for all prima facie limits ) 782 

Section 40508— Vehicle Code— Failure to appear, after signing citation 468 

Parking tag citations 194 

Section 4000a— Vehicle Code— Vehicle on highway, unregistered or with additional fees 

due, or registered in violation of air pollution control regulations 137 

Penal Code Sections 221 

Bench Warrants 240 

Other Vehicle Code Sections " 2508 

6 



1966-67 
187 
1903 
1189 

606 
490 
210 
153 
264 
140 
440 
308 

1214 

2274 
1622 

401 

363 

672 

3741 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY CASES IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

Defendants represented in Municipal Court 2697 3155 3919 

Charges filed against defendants in Municipal Court 6244 4139 5139 

Number of appearances made by deputies in Municipal Court 7630 9103 9930 



DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 

1964-65 

Defendants Held to Answer 1126 

Defendants Dismissed or Discharged 373 

Taken Over by Private Counsel 350 

Indicted by Grand Jury 159 

Certified to Superior Court 17 

Special Appearances Made 39 

Fugitives Appeared for 66 

Charges Reduced to Misdemeanors 388 

Referred to Juvenile Division ( Minors ) 17 

Certified to Superior Court Under Section 1368, Penal Code ... 48 

Miscellaneous Disposition— Bench Warrants— Withdrew 11 

Pending Cases 79 



1965-66 


1966-67 


1198 


1453 


438 


616 


552 


538 


97 


148 


26 


28 


45 


49 


64 


67 


539 


702 


9 


26 


2 


32 


88 


108 


73 


152 



REDUCED CHARGES— 702 DEFENDANTS 

The usual procedure on reduced charges is that the defendant enters a plea of guilty at his hearing 
in the Municipal Court to a lesser included offense ( to wit a misdemeanor ) , and the felony charge is dis- 
missed. This prevents a holding to the Superior Court. 

The 702 defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were disposed of as follows: 

Sentenced to County Jail 189 

County Jail with Probation 120 

County Jail— One day suspended 19 

Probation or suspended sentence 

( some with fine or restitution ) 62 

Suspended sentence with Probation 300 

Miscellaneous 12 



FELONY CASES HANDLED IN SUPERIOR COURT 

1964-65 

Old Cases 47 

New Cases 1611 

Total 1658 



)65-66 


1966-67 


70 


37 


1626 


1890 



1696 



1927 



NEW CASES 

1964-65 

Held to answer after preliminary hearing in Municipal Court 1126 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea of guilty 67 

Indicted by Grand Jury 159 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants in Superior Court 259 

Total 1611 



1965-66 


1966-67 


1198 


1453 


26 


28 


97 


148 


305 


261 



1626 



1890 



DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 



1964-65 

I defendants plead n u i 1 1 \ 745 

I defendants found guilt) ( Many of lesser included offenses) . . . 142 

Plead guilt) to lesser included offenses 94 

I >efendants dismissed 108 

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity 4 

Defendants found not guilty 23 



1965-66 


1966-67 


814 


909 


104 


156 


146 


120 


99 


132 


9 


8 


32 


24 



During the fiscal year the Public Defender's office made 1051 motions for probation in the felony cases 
handled. In 670 eases, probation was granted; in 297 cases probation was denied; 84 cases were pending 
for decision or withdrawn. 



Mentally ill cases 

Substituted by Private Counsel (many because of 

conflict of interest ) 

Special appearances on appointment by Court 

Certified from Municipal Court under Section 1368, Penal Code 

Certified from Municipal Court under 5500, W&I Code 

Motion to revoke probation (new cases) 

Motion to modify probation or sentence 

Motion to expunge or seal record 

Returned from hospital for sentence 

Returned from Narcotic Rehabilitation Center 

Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 

Miscellaneous and Rench Warrants 

Writs of Habeas Corpus Corum Nobis-Mandamus 

Cases still pending 



4-65 


1965-66 


1966-67 


7 


10 


4 


130 


88 


172 


18 


17 


18 


96 


107 


87 


12 


24 


7 


103 


102 


85 


19 


16 


15 


9 


6 


11 


33 


42 


47 


8 


15 


17 


3 


7 


5 


19 


20 


37 


10 


27 


21 


70 


37 


47 



During the fiscal year 1966-67 our office made the following motions : 

Motions for dismissal under Section 995, Penal Code 199 

Granted 70 Denied 129 

During the fiscal year we were assigned to represent 28 persons charged with murder. 



1965-66 


1966-67 


142 


144 


307 


206 


295 


483 



FINAL DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE 
PLEAD GUILTY, WERE FOUND GUILTY, OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1964-65 

Sentenced to State Prison for term prescribed by law 209 

Sentenced to County Jail 294 

Probation or suspended sentence with County Jail time 245 

( Some with fine or restitution ) 
Probation or suspended sentence 174 227 221 

( Some with fine or restitution ) 

Committed to Youth Authority 67 

Committed to State Hospitals 60 

Committed to Rehabilitation Center 

Referred to Municipal Court 

Miscellaneous— Rench Warrants 



51 


53 


73 


83 




71 




69 




26 



NUMBER OF MAJOR CHARGES IN FELONY CASES HANDLED IN 
SUPERIOR COURT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1966-67 

A felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and may include the penalty 
of death. When the crime is also punishable by a fine or by imprisonment in a county jail, within the dis- 
cretion of the court, it shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor for all purposes after a judgment has been 
rendered imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the State Prison. 

The major portion of felony charges handled by the Public Defender fell into the following categories : 

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

Section 459-Penal Code Rurglary 397 406 371 

Section 211-Penal Code-Robbery 313 215 310 

Health & Safety Code-Narcotic charges 301 234 598 

Section 10851-Vehicle Code-Theft of vehicle 126 144 204 

Section 470-Penal Code-Forgery 117 154 138 

Section 487-Penal Code-Grand Theft 134 98 141 

Section 245-Penal Code-Felonious Assault 139 107 118 

Section 496— Penal Code— Receiving Stolen Property ... ... 133 

The period of time within which felony cases were disposed of this year were as follows : 

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

30 days or less 57.8% 59.2% 49 % 

31 to 60 days 27.6% 26.5% 31 % 

61 to 90 days 8.8% 7.5% 10 % 

Over 90 days 5.8% 6.8% 10 % 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment and until the defendant is actually sen- 
tenced and all motions for new trials and appeals are disposed of. They also take into consideration the 
time after trial and before sentence in waiting for reports on Motion for Probation or Pre-Sentence Reports. 
This period of time is usually three weeks. 

Most cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which there is more than one defendant- 
some represented by private counsel; cases where there was more than one trial; cases involving capital 
crimes and cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed and defendants on bail. 



RECAPITULATION AND ESTIMATED COST 

DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

Traffic Cases 4453 7590 

Municipal ( Jourt-Misdemeanors* 11783 9298 11687 

Juvenile Court 93 142 324 

Mm liiipal Court-Felony Preliminary Hearings 2697 3155 3919 

Superior ( lourt 1658 1696 1927 

TOTAL DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 16231 18744 25447 

1964-65 figure includes traffic cases, now listed separately. 

APPEARANCES 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 

Traffic Cases 6661 9943 

Municipal Court-Misdemeanors 22172 19224 28067 

Juvenile Court— Persons Represented 114 168 324 

Municipal Court-Felony Preliminary Hearings 7630 9103 9930 

Superior Court 7659 7142 9965 

TOTAL APPEARANCES 37575 42130 58229 

ESTIMATED COST, COURT APPEARANCES ONLY: 

Per defendant (approximately) $11.41 $13.00 $10.49 

Per appearance (approximately) 4.93 5.67 4.60 

The cost per appearance does not take into consideration any of the interviews and conferences held 
in the office of the Public Defender such as the 2671 applications that were filed for our services, the many 
office interviews and conferences with people calling at our office; the appearances made by our deputies 
throughout the year in the county jail; the women's prison and the city prison to discuss the cases with 
the clients and conduct interviews. 

ACTUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1966-67 

Permanent Salaries $262,373.00 

Temporary Salaries 432.00 

Contractual Services 1,324.00 

Allowance for Use of Investigator's Car 200.00 

Materials and Supplies 950.00 

Law Rooks and Equipment 600.00 

Expert Witness Fees 550.00 

Fixed Charges-Dues 240.00 

Total $266,669.00 



10 



PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1967 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

per month 

Public Defender $ 2136 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 1571-1909 

4 Principal Attorneys, Criminal 1425-1733 

6 Senior Attorneys, Criminal 1171-1425 

1 Trial Attorney, Criminal 988-1200 

2 Investigators 738- 896 

1 Confidential Secretary— with legal training 795 

1 Legal Stenographer 488- 593 

1 Senior Clerk Typist 476- 578 

1 General Clerk-Typist 432- 525 

The attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and are not permitted to carry on private practice. 

Our offices are located at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco 94103, California; 
telephone 553-1671. 



11 



JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS 

With the recent U. S. Supreme Court Gault 
decision, upholding the right ol juvenile defend- 
ants to iluc process, the Public Defenders office 
in San Francisco is anticipating more demands 
upon their time to represent juveniles before the 
Juvenile Court in the coming year. (The Gault 
decision) 

\s i result of this decision, the Public Defenders 
office of Los Vngeles Count) has just submitted 
to the Chiel Administrative Officer a request for 
31 additional Deputy Public Defenders and 5 
additional clerical personnel to handle juvenile 
defendants before the Juvenile Courts. 

I n less the staff of the Public Defenders office 
in San Francisco is considerably increased, we will 
not be able to represent juvenile defendants in San 
Francisco. 

Last year we appeared on behalf of 324 juvenile 
offenders in the Juvenile Court for pre-detention 
hearings and hearings on petitions filed. Many of 
these appearances were before the Judge of the 
Juvenile Court and many were before the referees 
of the Juvenile Court. 

When the new Juvenile court law was enacted 
in 1961 by the terms of Sections 633, 634, 658, 659 
and 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the 
Public Defender, in counties where there is a 
Public Defender, has the duty and responsibility 
to appear on behalf of said juvenile offenders. 

UNIT OF COUNTING 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is 
the defendant, rather than the case or charge. If 
several cases on one individual are prosecuted dur- 
ing an overlapping time period, they are combined. 
When there are multiple cases or charges, a de- 
fendant is counted as dismissed or acquitted only 
if there are dismissals or acquittals on all such cases 
or charges. A defendant is counted as convicted 
when there is a conviction on any one of a group 
of cases or charges, even if the conviction be for 
an uncharged lesser and included offense to any of 
the charged offenses. 

APPEALS AND WRITS 

Although it is the duty of the Public Defender, 
as set forth in the Government Code of the State 



of California, Section 27706, and also the recent 
appellate decisions of the State of California and 
the U. S. Supreme Court, to handle appeals and 
special writs on behalf of their clients, the Public 
Defender's office, because of the lack of being 
properly staffed, has not been able to properly 
perform these duties. 

Many writs of habeas corpus, writs of prohibi- 
tion and mandamus which should be filed on 
behalf of our clients are not being filed and cannot 
be filed until we receive additional personnel to 
properly staff our office. 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

During the last fiscal year, under the internship 
program for law students and attorneys, 29 law 
students served under a special USF Workshop 
program. In addition, William P. Camazzo, Robert 
W. Lyons and Albert F. Cunningham served as 
interns for a period of from 6 weeks to 3 months. 

Owen E. Woodruff, former Professor of Law 
at the University of San Francisco, served in our 
office from January through May. During this 
period, he was of invaluable assistance in repre- 
senting some of the many clients we are called 
upon to serve. We are indeed grateful for his able 
and dedicated service to our office and commend 
Mr. Woodruff for his outstanding contribution to 
the administration of criminal justice. 

INVESTIGATION 

Our Investigators' duties are comparable to those 
of investigators employed in any private law office 
or by the District Attorney's office; mainly to 
locate, interview and secure signed statements 
from witnesses, in addition to making field inves- 
tigations of cases assigned to him by trial deputies. 

In certain cases, it is impossible, without an 
investigator, to ascertain the true facts; whereas, 
upon investigation, the deputy can determine from 
the data accumulated— regardless of whether the 
information discovered proves unfavorable to the 
accused— the guilt or innocence of the defendant, 
as well as mitigating circumstances. 

In addition to the assigned cases, the Investi- 
gators completed 39 Special Investigations as a 
courtesy, for other Counties. 



12 



ANNUAL REPORT 

m 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 
// OF SAN FRANCISCO 

/ 

JULY 1, 1967 TO JUNE 30, 1968 



EDWARD T. MANCUSO 
PUBLIC DEFENDER 

^BAAT C > 
69 J T T 1 O 




>• 

fw 



# 



**fa *#** 



Justice— The highest of the Four Cardinal Virtues 






j 



1969 



. 



The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under Section 33 of the Charter 
of the City and County of San Francisco, which reads as follows: 

"Section 33: . . . He shall immediately, upon the request of a defendant who is 
financially unable to employ counsel, or upon order of the court, defend or give 
counsel or advice to any person charged with the commission of a crime." 



JUR ISDICTION (including Traffic Cases) 

The Sttte of California enacted enabling legislation in 
paving the way for the establishment of the Public Defender system 
in the State of California. 

The Public Defender's office in San Francisco was estab- 
lishe October 15, 1921. We now represent defendants in mis- 
tfemea or cases (fncrluding traffi-e cases) and feloay cases. 

The San Francisco Public Defender's office operates under 
Section 33 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, 
which was adopted by the people of San Francisco in 1932. 

We else operate under Section 2TJl'> of the Government CocJe 
of the State of California; Sections 633, 634, 658, 659 and 700 
of the Welfare and Institutions Code, together with Section 
4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal Code. 

Our jurisdiction covers in excess of a million people, 
which includes those from the Peninsula and the Bay Area who 
visit San Francisco daily. 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

In representing defendants, our prime duty and responsibil- 
ity is to see that each defendant is granted a fair and imparl ial 
trial; that all of his constitutional rights are preserved; tlh.it 
the innocent are not found guilty; that every possible defense 
is presented; that investigation is made to ascertain if any 
mitic ting circumstances exist; and, generally to see that each 
def en ^int receives every protection of the law to which he is 
justl; entitled, under our Federal and State constitutions. 

. We exercise extreme care and caution to be certain that 
none but those eligible for legal service by the Public Defender's 
office are represented. 

Part of our duties are to handle ^plications for persons 
who seek a pardon and restoration of civil rights by filing 
certificates of rehabilitation when released from the State 
prison, as set forth in Section 4852.01 to 4852.2 of the Penal 
Code. 

The office also is handling an increasing number of requests 
for the Sealing and Expungement of criminal records, pursuant to 
Sections 851.7i 1203.4, 1203.4a and 1203.45 of the Penal Code. 



WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 
U. S. CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS 

Our Federal and State constitutions protect each and every 
citiz 1 from oppression, in the exercise of his basic concerr..:. 
The p Dtective influences of our democratic way of life find 
expression in the elaborate and extensive fabric of law which 
characterizes the administration of justice in situations relat- 
ing to crime, to Wit'-"" ••_■.•—-.. ^ 

No person shall be held to answer ^or a capital or other 
infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand 
jury.... Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense 
to be twice put in jeopardy. .. nor shall he be compelled in any 
criminal case to be a witness against himself* - 5th Amendment, 
U. S, Constitution. 

In all ordinal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury... and 
to be i nf ormed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be 
confronted with witnesses against him; to have compulsory pro- 
cess for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the 
assistance of counsel for his defense. - 6th Amendment, U. S. 
Conccitution. 

...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty 
or property without due process of law; nor deny any person 
withi . its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. - l*+th 
Amend ent, U. S. Constitution. 

CALIF ?NIA CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL LAWS 

The provisions of the California Constitution and the Gen- 
eral Laws of the State of California, as well as the Charter of 
the City and County of San Francisco, relating to the protection 
afforded those accused of crime, are no. inconsistent with the 
provisions of the United States Constitution. 

Recent decisions of the Federal and State Appellate Courts, 
in particular the United States Supreme Court, are making the 
constitutional right to counsel real and effective in both Fed- 
eral and State Courts. 

The effect of these decisions is that the constitutional 
right to counsel is present at every critical stage of the pro- 
ceeding and is available to the indigent as well as those finan- 
cially able to afford counsel. Because of these decisions and 
our society's stress on individual rights, new and adequately 

-2- 






staffed Public Defender offices are being establ i shed throughout 
the Nation. Existing Public Defender offices have had their 
staff cor.Gi'derably increased so as to bL able to adequately and 
effectively represent those entitled to their services to furnish 
representation as set forth by the decisions. 

The urgent need for adequate staffing of the San Francisco 
Public Defender Office was focused and vividly portrayed recently 
in the series of articles which appeared in the San Francisco 
Examiner and entitled, "Turnstile Justice"; written by ace re- 
porter, Will Stevens's and who, for his well "received- efforts, 
was the recipient of an award from the San Francisco Bar Assoc- 
iation. 

Recognizing the necessity for proper legal representation 
in criminal cases and acknowledging the urgent personnel need? 
of the Public Defender Office, the then Mayor John F. Shelley 
approved 11 additional personnel for the office, and the Board 
of S? i Francisco Supervisors unanimously voted for this increase 
in stiff. The breakdown was: 7 attorneys, one investigator and 
three clerical. For this action in furtherance of the administra- 
tion f criminal justice the San Francisco Public Defender Off.ce 
is extremely grateful to Mayor Shelley and the entire Board of 
Supervi sors. 

However, since this action on personnel was granted, be- 
cause of the continuing increase in cri- ^nal cases the Municipal 
Court has found it necessary to add additional courts. Depart- 
ment No. 11, formerly a court for jury cases, is now a general 
court handling misdemeanor cases as well as felony preliminary 
hearings. Department No. 17 has been opened as a jury trial 
court, and Department Mo. 13 has now been established as the 
master felony calendar court and also handles felony preliminary 
hearings. Th. increased personnel which was granted was neces- 
sary to properly service the previously existing courts, and, 
thus, these added courts have again placed a burden on "the Public 
Defender in giving proper and adequate representation to those 
the office is called upon to represent. 

The Public Defender has prepared a supplemental appropria- 
tion requesting only two additional attorneys in order to proj- 3 .rly 
service the presently existing courts in the Hall of Justice. 
It is sincerely hoped that the new Mayor, Joseph L. Alioto, and 
the [ ,ard of Supervisors will continue to show concern for the 
prope administration of criminal justice by approving these 
posi t . ons . 

-3- 



Even with the addition of the two requested deputies the 
San Francisco Public Defender will continue to have a greater 
case oad per deputy than any other Defender Office in the Nation. 

"he one Deputy Public Defender assigned to the Juvenile 
Court has been recalled to the Hall of Justice where he is 
urgently needed. This move was made possible because the Legal 
Aid Society was funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity 
to provide services in the Juvenile Court. There are four, 
attorneys from the* LegaT"A''i cT*Soci ety of "iarTTVancTscb present 1 y""" 
handling juvenile cases which had been formerly handled by the 
Public Defender. However, representation of juveniles by the 
Public Defender is a requirement of California law, and in the 
event the Legal Aid Society should not be refunded by the Office 
of Economic Opportunity, then the Public Defender will again 
have to assume the duty and responsibility of representing 
juveniles and it wi 1 1 be necessary that the Public Defender 
request four attorneys in order to service the Superior Court 
and the three referees hearing juvenile cases. 

Among the recent landmark cases which indicate that the 
constitutional right is broad enough to require counsel at 
virtually every stage of criminal proceedings for both adults 
anj juveniles are: 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 
Escobedo v. II linois (1964) 378 U.S. kjS 
People v. Dorado (1965) 42 Cal. Rptr. 169. 
Certiorari denied by U. S. Supreme Court 
33 USL Week 3389 
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 34 U.S. Law Week 4521 
I n re Gault (1967) 35 U.S. Law Week 4399 

The Standing ComrQJ.ttee,.pn. Legal. Ai ..' ajxd Indigent Defendants^ 
of the American Bar Association has recently taken the position 
that the House of Delegates should adopt a resolution placing 
a "HIGH PRIORITY" on upgrading representation of indigent de- 
fendants in criminal proceedings. 

The proposal would urge state and local Bars and municipal- 
ities to provide not only lawyers but related services such as 
investigators, psychiatrists and expert witnesses. 

The committee further stressed the fact that "failure to 
provide equal justice discriminates against citizens who are 
poor, deprives thern of historic rights guaranteed all citizens, 
jeopa-dizes all our governmental system and the rule of law it- 
self, foments "sregard and order and thus directly contributes 
to the disorder prevailing today in our society." 

-4- 



PERSONAL CONTACT FOR OUR SERVICES 

Representation of persons accused of crime who are on bail 
or released on their own recognizance (O.R.), has imposed a 
particular burden on our office. 

This problem stems from a recent two-fold development. 
First: Bail bond firms have become more liberal in accepting 
payment of bail premium on the installment plan, which results 
in mere persons who are in custody being released on bail. 
Many >f these are, in fact, indigent and usually have borrowed 
the d vn payment from relatives and friends. 

Second: The creation of the San Francisco O.R. project 
by the San Francisco Bar Association. 

During the period covered by this report a total of 3Q33 
applications were made to our office for our services. Of this 
number, \ jk were referred to a legal panels of attorneys who 
have agreed to handle the defense of criminal cases at a reason- 
able fee; e;q of the applicants were denied our services out- 
right. 

MISDEMEANOR CASEShaNDLED * n MUNICIPAL COURT 

Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility 
of a miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor level than in 
situations involving the commission of a felony. This is due, 
in part, to the fact that before a trial and conviction or ac- 
quittal in a felony case there must have been a preliminary 
screening of the evidence before a Grand Jury or a Committing 
Magistrate. 

Since many serious crimes are designated as misdemeanors 
and . ;rry severe penalties, our experience has convinced us 
that the constant presence in the Municipal Court of a Deputy 
Publi ; Defender greatly decreases the possibility of any mis 
carr' ige of justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable dis- 
position of many cases. 

Today the judges of the Municipal and Traffic Courts 
feel that it is absolutely necessary that a Public Defender 
be available at all times while the co: t is in session to 
assist in the expediting of the court calendar and to be avail- 
able for appointment when necessary. 



-5 



JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS 

With the recent U. S. Supreme Court Gault decision, upholding 
the right of juvenile defendants to due process, the Public De- 
fenders office in San Francisco is anticipating more demands 
upon their time to represent juveniles before the Juvenile Court 
in the coming year. (The Gault decision.) 

As a result of this decision, the Public Defenders office 
of los Angeles County submitted to the Chief Administrative ~~ 
Officer a request for 31 additional Deputy Public Defenders 
and 5 additional clerical personnel to handle juvenile defend- 
ants before the Juvenile Courts. 

/s of April S, 1968, the Juvenile Court was serviced by 
four lttorneys from the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, 
made ossible by a grant from the Office of Economic Opportunity. 
The one Deputy Public Defender who had been assigned to the 
Juvenile Court was recalled to the Hall of Justice where he was 
urgently needed to service the courts. 

In the event the Public Defender is again called upon to 
service the Juvenile Court, it will be necessary that four 
attorneys be provided to the Public Defender in order to 
perform this function. 

Last year from July 1, I967 through April 4, I968, we ap- 
peared on behalf of 1,213 juveniles at the Juvenile Court for 
pre-deteniion hearings and hearings on petitions filed. 

Of these, 648 were detained; 1 63 were released from custody; 
90 were dismissed; 1 was certified under 707 W & I; the other 
311 were miscellaneous hearings and appearances. 

When the ew Juvenile court law was enacted in J96I by the 
terms of Sections 633, 634, 658, 659 and 700 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code, the Public Defender, in counties where there 
is s Public Defender, has the duty and responsibility to appear 
on bvnalf of said juvenile offenders. 

UNIT OF COUNTING 

The unit of counting in our criminal statistics is the de- 
fendant, rather than the case or charge. If several cases on 
one individual are prosecuted during an overlapping time period, 
they are combined. When there are mult pie cases or charges, 
a defendant is counted as dismissed or cquitted only if there 
are dismissals o r acquittals on all such cases or charges. 

-6- 



A defendant k counted as convicted when there is a conviction 
on any one of a group of cases or charges, even if the conviction 
be for an uncharged lesser and included offense to any of the 
charged offenses. 

APPEALS AND WRITS 

Although it is the duty of the Public Defender, as set forth 
in the Government Code of the State of California, Section 277-06, 
and _1 , so the recent appellate decisions of the State of Calif- 
orni 1 and the U. S. Supreme Court, to handle appeals and special 
writ: on behalf of their clients, the Public Defender's offi 3, 
beca se of the lack of being properly staffed, has not been 
able to properly perform these duties. 

Many writs of habeas corpus, writs of prohibition and man- 
damus which should be filed on behalf of our clients are not 
being filed and cannot be filed until • 3 receive additional 
personnel to properly staff our office. 

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 

Through t.ie efforts of the Public Defender, the Board of 
Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco in 1 960 
approved the following ordinance for the establishment of an 
Internship Program in the office of the Public Defender: 

SEC. 16.9-1. Internship for law students and attorneys. 
The Public Defender is hereby authorized to institute a systen 
of internship for duly qualified law students and attorneys 
of the City and County of San Francisco to serve in the office 
of the Public Defender and thereby acquire experience in the - 
field of criminal law. The said service to be entirely volun- 
tary and under the supervision of the Public Defender and 
pern rient members of the office of the Public Defender. 

I iw students and attorneys serving under this system of 
intc nship shall be designated and shall serve at the pleasure 
of the Public Defender. Each attorney so designated must be 
qualified to practice in all the Courts of the State, 

There shall be no salary, wages, c- compensation of any 
kind or nature paid to said law studen 3 or attorneys, nor 
shall any such person be eligible to be a member of the re- 
tirement system of the City and County of San Francisco or 
have any rights thereunder by reason of such service. 






Since th>- inauguration of this program many law students 
and practicing attorneys have served under this program. The 
response to the program and the gratifying results experience,' 
by those who have served indicate without question that such 
a program is a vital force in aiding in the proper administra- 
tion of criminal justice. 

INVESTIGATION 

Our Investigators' duties ^re comparable to those of in- 
vestigators employed in any private law office or by the Dis- 
trict Attorney's office; mainly to locate, interview and secure 
signed statements from witnesses, in addition to making fieK' 
investigations of cases assigned to hirr. by trial deputies. 

In certain cases, it is impossible, without an investigator, 
to ascertain the true facts; whereas, upon investigation, the 
deputy can determine from the data accumulated - regardless 
of whether the information discovered proves unfavorable to 
the accused - the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as well as 
mitigating ci. . jmstances. 

In November, 1967, the then Mayor Shelley and the Board of 
Supervisors approved the addition of an investigator for the 
Public Defender Office. This has placed the office in the 
best position it has ever been to properly investigate the 
many cases handled by the office. 

MISDEMEANOR & TRAFFIC JURY CASES 
V'.en a jury trial is demanded, the case is referred to the 
jury calendar for trial. After a thorough di scussion of the 
case vi th the Deputy Public Defender appointed to represent raid 
clic t, there is almost always a request by the cU.eoL~.that the 
demand for the jury trial be waived. 

Last year we represented 1922 clients who had demanded jury 
trials; almost twice as many as the preceding year. Only 43 
actually had jury trials or 2 1/2%. 

JUVEMILE COURT 

From July 1 I967 to April 4, 1968, when the Public Defender 
abandoned servicing the Juvenile Court, the Public Defenders of- 
fice represented 1213 juveniles in the Juvenile Court; 648 were 
detained; I6f ".re released from custody; 90 petitions were dis- 
missed and 1 was certified under 707 W&I Code; 311 were other- 
wise disposed of. 

-8- 



M ISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES 

Due to an increased need for representation in traffic cases 
arising out of the increased demand by the Traffic Courts that 
the Public Defender be available for the representation of in- 
digent people., and particularly in the representation of all 
minors appearing before the Traffic Court, we have found it 
necessary to initiate the following changes in our reporting 
procedures : 

1. Maintain separate records in traffic cases; 

2. Report them separately rather than included in the mis- 
demeanor cases as was heretofore the policy. 

1966-67 1967-68 

Defendants represented in Traffic Court 7590 7866 

Charges filed against defendants 16177 16151 

No. of appearances made by deputies 9943 1 1 368 

DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC CASES 



O66-67 1967-68 



Defendants Plead Guilty 
Defendants Found Guilty 
Defendants Dismissed * 
Defendants Found Not Guilty 
Taken over by Private Counsel 
Special Appearance 
Motion to Revoke Probation 
Bench Warrant Issued 
Mi 3cal leneous Cases 
Cases Still lending 



3254 


4085 


2283 


1418 


1406 


1567 


82 


265 


188 


235 


98 


16 


75 


45 


136 


122 


13 


66 


55 


47 



Total 7590 7866 



* In 30% of the cases where the defendants were dismissed, 
the were sent to traffic school. 

-9- 



DISPOSITIO N OF CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS EITHER PLEAD GUILTY 
Wh RE FOUND GUILTY OR WERE OTHERWISE SENTENCED IM "TRAFFIC CO'.'RT 

1967-68 
Committed to County Jail (mostly only a few days.) . 

62% sentenced to only two days - one day credit 2619 

Comm .ted to County Jail, 1 day suspended 14 

Finec or Jail Time 350 
Probe ion with Jail Time, some with restitution or fine 201 

Sentu :ed to Time Served 578 

Suspended Sentence 270 -*— ■ 
Suspended Sentence, probation or probation with fine 

or restitution 389 

Fine or Restitution 431 

Probation with Suspended Sentence 357 

Pending for Sentence 5 

Miscellaneous - Bench Warrants 6 

Traffic school 610 

MAIN CHARGES CITED IN MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS 

1967-68 

Section 1C352 VC - Tampering with vehicle 319 
Section 12951 VC - Drivers' license, refusal to 

- display, not in possession 1920 
Section 14601 VC - Driving with suspended or revoked 

license 895 
Section 23102 VC - Driving while under the influence 

of alcohol (or combined with drug) 446 

Section 647f PC-Drunk in and about an autho 482 

Section 23109a VC - Engage in a speed contest 159 

Section 23123 VC - Storage of opened containers- 1 iquor 155 

Secti >n 20002aVC - Hit run with property damage 287 

Secti< n 2 1 45 1 VC - Stop and go signals 143 

Section 22101 VC - Marking or signs for turning 597 

Section 2l453aVC - Failure to obey traffic signals 301 
Section 22350 VC - Unsafe speed for prevailing condi- 
tions (use for all prima facie limits 1209 
Section 40508VC-Fai lure to appear, after signing 

citation 2401 

Parki ng t g ci tat tops 1 1 28 
Section 4000aVC- Vehicle on highway, unregistered or 
with additional fees due or registered in violation of 

air pollution control regulations ^73 

Other Miscellaneous Sections 212 

Penai Code Sections 815 

Bench Warran ■«■ 611 

Other Vehicle ^de Sections 3910 

-10- 



DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 

1966-67 1967-63 
Mtrroer of defendants represented 
Charres filed against defendants 
Numbe: of appearances made by deputies 

DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANOR CASES 



11687 


13^58 


17847 


23845 


28067 


37098 



1966-67 1 967-6 r 



Defendants plead guilty 

Defendants foLnd guilty 

Defendants dismissed or discharged * 

Defendants found not guilty 

Taken over by V vate Counsel 

Special Appearance 

Motions to Revoke Probation - New 

Certified to Jt 'enile Court - Minors 

Certified to Sup. Ct. under 1 368 PC 

Mot i or i to Reduce or Modify Sentences 

Motion, to Expunge or Seal Records 

Mentally 111 - Hearings 

Warrants Issued 

Cases still pending 

Misca 1 , laneous - Bail Forfeited, etc. 





. .. 


3037 


4185 


1968 


1837 


2454 


3601 


332 


236 


1200 


1448 


531 


144 


261 


200 


30 


61 


18 


64 


23 


33 


237 


327 


1055 


617 


345 


402 


106 


271 


35 


32 






* Many of the :ases listed above, showing that defendants were 
dismi sed or discharged, are cases where, after a court hearing, 
the judge fourd the evidence insufficient to find the defendant 
guilty, and the ."ore dismissed the charges filed against hi.n. 

-11- 



DISPOSi OF CASES IN WHICH DEFEi O , . ,S .EITHER PLEAD GUILTY 
WF.iiE FOUND GUILTY OR OTHERWISE SENTENCED 

1967-68 
Committed to County Jail 1436 

Committed to County Jail - One Day Suspended * 1 06 

Fined or Jail Time 1 74 

Sentenced to Time Served 124 

Susoc ,Jed Sente ce (some with fine or restitution) 523 

Fine or Restitution 1 47 

hrobat. n Granted (some with fine or restitution) 533 

Probati i granted with Suspended Sentence (Most with 

Fine or restitution) 2030 

Probation with jail time (some with fine or restitution) 771 

Miscallenous and Bench Warrants 166 

Pending for Sentence 195 



* When the .dge imposes a jail sentence with one day suspended, 
he thereby maintains control of the sentence imposed upon the de- 
fendant which can be modified any time thereafter within his dis- 
cretion to either time served or a lesser jail time than originally 
imposed. 

Most misdemeanor cases, carry penalties of a fine or imprison- 
ment in the County Jail for not more than 6 months, or both fine 
and im ri sonment. 

MISCELLANEOUS INFORM A TION 

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, there were 162 
motior- made to seal records (under section 851.7 PC and Section 
1 203.4 ^ PC); there were 1 58 motions made to expunge records (under 
Sectio 1203.4 and 1203.4a of the Penal Code, and 7 under Secc.on 
1772 W I Code. 

-12- 



THE MAIN CHA R GES FILED AGAINST MISDEMEANTS HANDLED BY THE PUDLIC 

DEFENDER WERE : 

1967-68 
Section 148 - Penal Code 

Resisting officers in the discharge of their duties 1308 

Sectic 242-Penal Code-Battery 1490 

Sectioi 270-Penal Code-Child neglect-failure to provide 248 

Section 272-Penal Code 

Causing minors to become ward of Juvenile Court 463 

Section 370-Penal Code-Public nui sance-01 ;tructing free 

and comfortable use of liberty and pre erty 219 

Section 415-Penal Code- Affray S- Disturbing Peace 1066 

Section 417-Per i Code-Threatening with weapon 243 

Section 488-Penal Code - Petty theft 3125 

Section 594-Penal Code-Malicious Mischief 558 

Section 602L Penal Code-Trespasses-i n property 301 

Secti.n 647 Penal Code-Disorderly conduct (7 sections) 
Mew section. Vagrancy provisions of prior years 
repealed. 982 

Sectic- 647B-Penal Code 

Sol cits or engages in act of prostitution 1797 

Sectior 647F-Penal Code - Counted separately, Under 

influence of intoxicating liquor or drug 2106 

Section 650%-Penal Code - Act against public peace, 

health cr decency; false personation 224 

Section 1 2^1 -Municipal Police Code 

Loitering while carrying concealed we^xn 586 

Section 12025-Penal Code-Carrying concealed firearms 317 
Section 4143A B & P Code-Possession of hypodermic needle 

or syringe 1665 

Section 1556 H £• S-Narcotic pipes £• resorts 702 
Section 11910 HS-S- Posses si on of drugs without prescription 1255 

Park Code Sections 334 

All other sections 3793 

Mentally ill - San Francisco Hospital 617 

-13- 



PRELIMINARY HEARINGS ON FELONY CA^.'" IN MUNICIPAL COURT 



3919 


4202 


5139 


5188 


9930 


nasi 



1965-66 


1966-67 


196" 


1198 


1453 


1351 


43s 


616 


42^ 


552 


..538 


1087 


97 ..:: 


148 - 


T33 


26 


- . 28 


- 11 


45 .:.. 


- 49 


c 1 


64 


67 


89 


539 


702 


.-830 


9<: 


- 26 - 


- ■ Z.j 



/ 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 

Defendants represented in 

Municipal Cou t 3 '55 

Char-os filed against defendants 

in Municipal Court 4139 

Nutter of app ances made by 

deputies in Municipal Court 9103 

DISPOSITION AND OUTCOME OF CASES 



Defendants He'd to Answer 

Dc endants Dismissed or Discharged 

n over by Private Counsel ".. 
Indi cted by Grand Jury 
Certi ied to Superior Court 
Speci I Appearances Made - - 
Fugit /es Appeared for 
Chari. .-j reduced to Misdemeanors 
Referred to Juvenile Div. (Minors) 
Certi fi-ed to Superior Court 

under -Section 1 368 Penal Code " 2 ._..J2 . - : 30 
Miscallancous Disposition - 

Bench Warrants - Withdrew -8 108 109 

Pending Cases 73 152 - o9 

Other Dispositions 23 

REDUCED CHARGES - 83O DEFENDANTS "' 

The usl^I rrocedure on reduced charges is that the defendant 
enters a plea - guilty at his hea. ing in the Municipal Court to 
a lesser included offense (to wit a misdemeanor), and the felony 
charge is dismissed. This prevents a holding to the Superior Court 

The 82 n defendants that plead guilty to misdemeanors were 
disposed of a:: follows: 

Sentenceo to County Jail 216 

Coanty Jail with Probation 180 

County Jai 1 - 1 day suspended 39 
"^obation or suspended sentence (some with 

i ne or restitution) 160 

: -.spended sentence with Probation ... 210 

' iscellaneous - Time served .17 

v ending for sentence - Bench warrants 8 

-14- 






FELONY CASES HANDLED IN SU: :RIOR COURT 

1966-67 1967-68 
Old Cases 37 57 

New Cases 1890 2181 

Total 1927 2228 

NEW CASES 
Held to answer after preliminary hearing in 

Municipal Court 1453 1351 

Certified from Municipal Court upon plea 
of g:i 1 ty 

Indicted by Gr^nd Jury 

Appointed by Court to represent defendants 
in Superior Court 

Total 

DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Defem jnts plead guilty 
Plead guilty to lesser included offenses 
Defendants found guilty (many of lesser 
included offenses) 
Defendants dismissed 

Defendants found not guilty by reason o 
insanity 

Defendants found not guilty 
Mentcl 1 y ill cases 

Substituted by Private Counsel (many because 
of conflict of interest) 

Special appearances on appointment by court 
Certified from Municipal Court under 1 368 PC 
Certified from Kjnicipal Court, under Miscel- 
laneous Sections 

Motion to revoke probation (new cases) 
Motion to modify probation or sentence 
Motion to expunge or seal record 
Retu. ned from hospital for sentence 
Returned from arcotic Rehabilitation Center 
Rehabilitation and Executive Clemency 
Miscellaneous £- Bench Warrants 
Writs -Habeas Corpus, Corum Nobis, Mandamus 
Cases sti 1 1 pendi ng 

V' » represented 32 defendants charged with murder. They ere 
dispc ^d of as follows: Found guilty, 1st degree - 3; plead guilty 
1st degree - 1; found guilty, 2nd degree - 3; plead guilty, 2nd 
degree - 3; plead guilty to manslaughter - 6; held insane, con- 
mi tted for hospitalization - 3; taken over by private counsel - 5; 
found not guilty by reason of insanity 1; dismissed - 3 1 still 
pending - 4. 

-15- 



28 


11 


148 


133 


261 


686 


1890 


21b; 


CASES 




909 


100^ 


120 


158 


156 


9': 


132 


106 


8 




L. 


24 


\k 


4 


6 


172 


167 


18 


26 


87 


186 


7 


24 


85 


107 


15 


31 


1 1 


14 


47 


8 1 


17 


14 


5 


8 


37 


34 


21 


51 


47 


CO, 



49% 


k\% 


31% 


37% 


10% 


13% 


10% 


9% 



The perio I time within which felony cases were disposed 
of this year were as follows: 

1966-67 1967-68 

30 days or less 

31 to 60 drys 
1 to 90 -Jays 

Over 90 d;., s 

These statistics are based on the time from his arraignment 
and ur "-; 1 the defendant is actually sentenced and all motions for- 
new tr als and appeals are disposed of. They also take into con- 
s^dcra* ion the time after trial and before sentence in waiting 
for re orts on Motions for Probation or Pre-Sentence Reports. 
This period of time is usually three weeks. 

Most cases not disposed of within 90 days are those in which 
there is more than one defendant - some represented by private 
counsel, cases where there was more than ^ne trial; cases involving 
capital c. i..ies and cases where Appeals or Writs have been filed 
and defendants or, bai 1 . 

PER S P MNEL AND COMPENSATION EFFECTIVE JULY 1,-1968 

Our office consists of the following personnel: 

per month 

Public Defender $2265.00 

Chief Attorney, Criminal 1733 - 2105. 

6 - Principal Attorneys, Criminal 1533 - 1 863 - 

10- Senior Attorneys, Criminal 1260 - 1533. 

2 - Trial Attorneys, Criminal IO63 - 1232. 

3 - Investigators 795 - 965. 

1 ~ Confidential Secretary with legal training 8 1 3 - 988. 

2 - Legal Stenographers 539 - 653. 
1 - Senior Clerk T-ypist 525 - 638. 

3 - Gt sral Clerk-Typists ^76 - 578. 

T 3 attorneys all devote full time to their duties, and a: 
not p nitted to carry on private practice. 

Our offices are located at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryan 
Street, San Francisco 9^103, California; telephone 553-1671. 






-13- 



112210 



&&&$